Sitting of 26 October 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    HARWICH PARKESTON QUAY BILL.
    Lords amendments agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Inner Cities
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further plans his Department has to revitalise the inner cities.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Tony Newton): We shall continue to build on the extensive range of initiatives which make up the Government's Action for Cities programme.
    Mr. Hughes: I congratulate the Chancellor on his appointment, if not on that reply.
    The right hon. Gentleman will know that I have written to him about the employment effects of urban development corporations, as evidenced in the third report of the Select Committee on Employment. Will he have urgent consultations with Ministers in other Departments to reverse the pattern of job losses for local people under the London Docklands Development Corporation? Will he take specific interest in the planning application for Bombay wharf and surrounding area, which now threatens 70 traditional jobs for local people? Will he give some sign that we will get jobs for locals, not just for people coming in from outside?
    Mr. Newton: I recall my correspondence with the hon. Gentleman, in which he will remember I made two points. First, I am responsible for the programmes and keep closely in touch with my Government colleagues who are concerned with them, but, secondly, the specific issues the hon. Gentleman raised about the Select Committee's report are really matters for the reply of the Department of the Environment to that report. He will understand that I would not want to pre-empt that.
    The hon. Gentleman somewhat overplays his hand on local jobs. I understand that it is thought that among the projects that the LDDC has promoted since 1981 a total of 1,560 local jobs have been preserved and 2,120 created by LDDC grants to 200 firms. That is part of a much wider job creation which everyone would agree has occurred as a result of the LDDC's activity.
    278
    As for the hon. Gentleman's specific planning point, he will understand that I have no information about it this afternoon, but I shall look into what he said.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that environmental improvement schemes, often at very little cost, can frequently be the best initiatives to encourage people and businesses into derelict inner city areas? May I have my right hon. Friend's assurance that his Department is keeping in touch with ministerial colleagues at the Department of the Environment to promote initial environmental improvement schemes, often using local labour?
    Mr. Newton: Yes, indeed, in general terms I can give that assurance. I add the hope that the various private sector initiatives, which are now becoming an important and useful feature of inner city action, will also take my hon. Friend's point.
    Mr. Loyden: Can the Minister be satisfied with the levels of unemployment in most inner cities? Is he aware that the money that is now going through various Government agencies is having virtually no impact on hard core unemployment in those cities? When will the Government realise that unemployment will not be shifted off the agenda by their silence on these issues?
    Mr. Newton: No, I am not satisfied with the level of unemployment in inner city areas. The purpose of a large number of our programmes is to reduce it. I am happy to say that they are doing so with increasing success against the background of general economic resurgence. I shall not weary the hon. Gentleman with a lot of statistics, but the task forces, for instance, which report direct to me, have already been responsible for the creation of significant numbers of jobs in inner city areas.
    Mr. Roger King: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormous investment going into the city of Birmingham, almost all of it from private enterprise? About £1 billion is being spent to revitalise the city centre. Does my right hon. Friend agree that good and successful city centres have obvious repercussions for inner cities because they provide jobs and opportunities in the right environment for continuing investment?
    Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend and would also put the point the other way around. There is now a much better climate of confidence for new investment in our economy, and that is a significant advantage for inner cities and one reason why I am glad to see the private sector beginning to come in behind so many of our initiatives.
    Mr. Caborn: On the matter of financing, can the Minister explain the position in Europe about the integrated development operations programmes, especially in relation to article 15 and the local authority element that it contains? Does he not think it stupid that this row has been going on for so long while we are putting at risk hundreds of millions in regional development fund and social fund grants because of the Government's vindictive attitude to local authorities?
    Mr. Newton: In no sense do the Government have a vindictive attitude towards local authorities. I have emphasised many times that where local authorities are prepared to work in a practical way with us, we are more

    279
    than willing to work in a practical way with them. The matter that the hon. Gentleman raises will be looked at against that background.

    Enterprise Initiative
    Mr. Hayward: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many applications have so far been received for consultancy projects under the enterprise initiative.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): My hon. Friend will be aware that the enterprise initiative includes assistance with consultancy projects in key management skills essential for a competitive business. Those skills are marketing, design, quality, manufacturing technology, business planning and financial and information systems. In the nine months since we launched the enterprise initiative my Department has received over 12,500 applications for assisted consultancy, demonstrating strong business support for the service.
    Mr. Hayward: In welcoming my hon. Friend to his new job, may I ask him to note that there are more Scots on the Tory Benches at the moment than on the Labour Benches? They are clearly worried about Govan. I should like to ask my hon. Friend about the effect of the enterprise initiative. Was it not originally intended for small businesses, and is it working in that way for the benefit of small businesses, and not for the benefit of medium-sized and large businesses?
    Mr. Forth: The general response shows that we are meeting the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. Over 90 per cent. of the applications for assisted consultancies have been from firms with fewer than 100 employees. We are on target to fulfil the promise in the White Paper of supporting 1,000 consultancies every month. I hope my hon. Friend accepts that that is good news and will carry that message back to his constituency and encourage as many companies as possible there to make applications.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Has my right hon. Friend noticed—sorry, I am jumping the gun slightly. Has my hon. Friend noticed that his enterprise initiative is being emulated as far away as on the other side of the world by the Socialist Government of New Zealand, who are proposing to privatise their state airline? Has my hon. Friend had any representations on that specific subject from anyone on the Opposition Front Bench?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that representations from the Opposition on such matters are few and far between. I think he will agree that their ideas on these matters, if they ever existed, have long since run out and they have come to accept that the initiatives that we are taking under the enterprise initiative have been, and continue to be, a resounding success.

    Manufacturing Output
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the most recent figure for output in manufacturing industry; and what was the figure for the same month in 1973.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the latest figures he has for the output of manufacturing industry; and what was the comparable figure one year ago.
    Mr. Forth: In August 1988 manufacturing output was at a level of 116·9, based on 1985 equal to 100. This is 5 per cent. more than the level of 111·1 for August 1973, but my hon. Friends will appreciate that monthly data can be erratic. A firmer based comparison would be that in the three months to August 1988 manufacturing output was 3·5 per cent. higher than in the same period in 1973. It was also 7 per cent. higher than in the three months to August 1987. Manufacturing output is at its highest ever level.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend feel that manufacturing industry has expanded in a satisfactory manner over the past 15 years?
    Mr. Forth: The record shows that, for example, between 1973 and 1979 manufacturing output fell by 4 per cent. However, having gone through a world recession, having restructured British industry and having achieved unprecedented levels of productivity and profitability, we are now well on the way to having an outstandingly successful manufacturing sector.
    Mr. MacKay: Are not rising unit labour costs the biggest dangers to manufacturing industry, and are not the essential tasks of the Government to make sure that inflation remains low and that wage increases are kept to a minimum and based on productivity increases?
    Mr. Forth: Yes, my hon. Friend has characteristically put his finger on an important problem, which is that whereas the Government accept full responsibility for keeping inflation as low as possible, and are doing so now, the private sector must bear the primary responsibility for wage restraint. Any increases in productivity may be prejudiced by excessively high wage settlements, which are causing much concern.
    Mr. Kennedy: The Minister correctly warns about the erratic nature of some of the comparisons on manufacturing output. However, we should not be blind to the errors that occurred between 1979 and 1981, when two massive deflationary Budgets did so much damage and caused so much destruction in the manufacturing base. Is it not significant that many of the Government's figures, as shown by the Minister's response, are based on events since 1981 and not on events since 1979, when the Tory Government came to power?
    Mr. Forth: I agree that the basis of comparison is of the essence, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider both the position that we found when we inherited Government in 1979, and the background of world recession. I hope he will agree that the progress that we have made since then has been remarkable, and the figures on manufacturing output, productivity and profitability show that we are on a long trend of success that will continue, even according to the Confederation of British Industry, into the foreseeable future.
    Dr. Reid: Is it not a pathetic reflection on the Government that manufacturing output is only now back to the level that it was when the Government came into power? Is the Minister proud of the Government's three records in manufacturing industry, which have produced

    281
    the first manufacturing deficit in our trade, the worst in one single month and, this year, the worst in one year? Will not the privatisation of industries such as steel make things even worse, by allowing firms to go for short-term profit, private closures and more steel imports?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that the world continues to change and progress and that if we do not change and progress with it we have little or no chance of surviving. He must come to terms with that and realise that unless the private sector continues to change, to invest and to improve productivity, we shall have no chance of competing in an ever more competitive world.

    Restrictive Trade Practices
    Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures he intends to implement to tackle restrictive trade practices in the professions.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): The Government have proposed radical changes in the restrictive trade practices legislation. The exemptions enjoyed by professional services and other sectors of the economy under the current legislation will not be carried across into the new legislation without the merits of each having been established afresh.
    Mr. Knight: Are there not still many restrictive practices in the professions, and is it not wholly desirable that they should be subjected to objective scrutiny to ascertain whether they are operating in the public interest? Will my hon. Friend confirm that nothing is to be regarded as sacrosanct? Does he agree that a good professional does not need the protection of a closed shop and that the only criterion that the Government should use is the interests of the customer?
    Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is right to say that there are still a good many restrictive practices in the professions. The purpose of the new system of control that we proposed in the Green Paper earlier this year is to ensure that there is proper scrutiny of those restrictions so that the overall public interest can be established. It is, of course, necessary to balance the need for competition, so that consumers have access to a wide choice of services at the lowest practical cost, with the requirement for professional standards to remain high, and to ensure a proper degree of consumer protection.
    Mr. Hoyle: Will the Minister examine the position of estate agents, particularly in respect of the practice of gazumping and the selling of houses when the would-be purchaser believes that a sale has been arranged prior to the contract? What will the Government do about that?
    Mr. Maude: The question that I have been asked is about restrictive practices in the professions. [Interruption.] The point made from a sedentary position is right. Estate agents are not subject to any sort of closed shop. The point raised by the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) is widely discussed and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs is looking into the matter.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of us welcome the proposal of our noble Friend in
    282
    the House on Lords concerning solicitors and members of the legal profession, which will come as a shock to some of them, who will have to earn a living for once? Does he accept that what we need to do, for those who are so keen on the Common Market, is to look at an early stage at the restrictive practices that exist in Europe, which, frankly, will be much more damaging to this country than many of the other stupid things that the Common Market wants to do?
    Mr. Maude: Speaking as a retired lawyer, I take my hon. Friend's remarks somewhat amiss, but I assure him that the pressure to review and look afresh at restrictive practices in the professions does not flow from the European Community. We want to establish a proper system of scrutiny for professional restrictive practices, to make sure that the public interest is properly answered.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Is it not right, now that so much damage has been done to British manufacturing industry in the name of competition, to tackle and end the monopoly of barristers in the higher courts, to allow them to set up in practice wherever they want and in whatever combination they want with other professions, to break the restrictive practices of solicitors and to impose effective and powerful competition on estate agents, rather than talking about a mere code of practice?
    Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman will know that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor proposes to publish a Green Paper on the legal professions generally, plus two specific consultation papers on two specific areas, in the new year. I shall make sure that his attention is drawn to the hon. Gentleman's comments.
    Mr. Baldry: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although consumers can benefit from competition, they are protected by professional skills, qualifications and standards? The consumer wants competence as well as competition. Our hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak would not want his appendix taken out by a layman. He would want it taken out by a doctor. Likewise, he would be pretty apprehensive if his will were drafted by someone who did not know what he was doing.
    Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is quite right. He puts the balance correctly and it is precisely so that such a balance can be drawn between the interests of the public, in having proper high standards and a decent level of competition so that choice is wide and costs are low, that these new procedures have been suggested.

    European Single Market
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further action his Department is taking to ensure that all parts of Britain benefit equally from the introduction of the European single market.
    Mr. Maude: Economic studies indicate that the completion of the single market will give a significant boost to Community GDP and employment. I expect firms in all parts of the United Kingdom to share in this, and the aim of our "Europe—Open for Business" campaign is to encourage firms, wherever they are located, to take action to exploit the opportunities that the single market will bring.
    Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister give me an assurance that, when 1992 comes and those opportunities are available, firms in my constituency of Orkney and Shetland will be competing on an equal basis with similar firms in the south, and if not, why not?
    Mr. Maude: There is nothing in the Government's power to put firms in each part of the country on an equal footing. We cannot alter geography. That lies well beyond our powers, but we can make sure that the opportunities available to firms in the regions of the United Kingdom are accentuated to them and that they are aware of those opportunities and take steps now, as they should be doing, to prepare themselves for it.
    Mr. Aitken: Is my hon. Friend able to confirm the embarrassing report on the front page of today's edition of The Guardian, which states that under the Single European Act's majority voting powers the EEC will compel the British Government to spend £6 billion of taxpayers' money on social projects in Labour-controlled inner city areas? Does not this latest Delors initiative confirm the view that the EEC juggernaut is rolling wildly out of control? What do the Government propose to do to stop it?
    Mr. Maude: The general view is that the EC machinery is under better control now than it has been for some time. The steps that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has taken to ensure that there are proper reforms where they are needed have led to considerable improvements.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: The Prime Minister has said that she does not want the European single market, or anything connected with the EEC, to destroy the distinctive character of British banks. To fulfil the Prime Minister's pledge, will the Minister give an undertaking that a European or foreign bank will not be able to take over the Girobank? When are we to have a statement on who is on the short list to buy the Girobank? What is the delay? What has happened?
    Mr. Maude: I cannot help the hon. Gentleman on the last part of his question. As for the first part, he will recollect that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who is now Secretary of State for Health, made an announcement on the issue earlier in the year he set out clearly the terms on which Girobank was being offered for sale.
    Mr. Conway: In helping British firms towards 1992, will my hon. Friend tell the House whether his Department is actively monitoring some of the more unfair trade practices of some of our so-called European allies, especially France?
    Mr. Maude: We try to monitor unfair practices elsewhere, but we depend heavily on British firms which come across evidence of unfair trade practices to tell us about them and supply information. We are certainly prepared to do what we can to investigate such practices. We are pressing hard for action to be taken against them wherever possible. We cannot act unless we know what is happening.
    Mr. Gould: Which sectors of British industry has the Minister identified as being gravely at risk from the increased competition that they will face after 1992, instead of having glowing prospects? Or are the salesmen
    284
    of the Department of Trade and Industry, including the head salesman, so busy with their advertising campaign that they have not bothered with this essential work?
    Mr. Maude: The days when the Government of the day tried to pick winners in that way have long gone. The record of the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported in the 1970s in trying to pick the sectors that would be the ones for the future was a disastrous failure. Highly competitive firms that prepare now for the opportunities and challenges of the single market will do well. Firms that are less competitive will do less well in what will be an increasingly competitive market.
    Mr. Batiste: My hon. Friend has said that the Government cannot alter the geography of the United Kingdom. Will he ensure that industry, wherever it is situated, will have equal access through the Channel tunnel, when it is built, and through the transport infrastructure, without unnecessary and bureaucratic red tape? Will he assure the House that when the tunnel is built we shall not substitute a new barrier for northern industry on the Thames?
    Mr. Maude: I can assure my hon. Friend that it is the Government's intention that when the arrangements are completed the checks and hindrances on transport between the United Kingdom and the continent will be as minimal as is practicable.

    CBI (Northern Region)
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what subjects were discussed at his last meeting with the northern region of the Confederation of British Industry; and when he next proposes to meet the northern region of the Confederation of British Industry.
    Mr. Newton: I have not yet met the northern chamber of the CBI, and have no present plans to do so. However, when I was in Newcastle on 21 September I met the chief executive of the Newcastle initiative, the first of the special CBI task forces to enhance the private sector contribution to regenerating rundown inner city areas.
    Mr. Cousins: As the same task force has identified Newcastle as a future centre for Japanese-based financial services, and as the Japanese and Australian Governments are talking about having a fully cabled technocity in Australia, will the Minister give such a scheme for Newcastle his personal leadership and commitment?
    Mr. Newton: The whole point of the encouragement that we have given to the CBI and other private sector initiatives is to do with our belief that the active and wholehearted involvement of the private sector is the key ingredient in the regeneration of inner cities. I have given my encouragement to the CBI in that respect, but I do not wish to imply specific Government backing for a specific scheme, for which I have not received details.
    Mr. Devlin: If my right hon. Friend should have such a meeting with the northern region of the CBI, will he discuss with it the importance of industries that are based in the region, which have head offices in the region and which have invested great sums of money in employment schemes in the region? In particular, will he discuss the case of Scottish and Newcastle Breweries, which is now

    285
    facing a major threat from Elders IXL, which could have the most deleterious effect on employment prospects in the north-east?
    Mr. Newton: I assume that the main thrust of my hon. Friend's question was the second part of it. I can say only that the proposed acquisition is being examined in the normal way by the Director General of Fair Trading, who will advise my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the question of reference in due course. As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, any representations that he or anybody else wants to make should be made to the Director General of Fair Trading at this stage.

    Action for Cities
    Mr. Charles Wardle: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the response to his "Action for Cities" breakfast presentations.
    Mr. Newton: Of the 1,200 senior business men who attended the six presentations held between mid-April and the end of June, about a quarter made specific offers of help. Those offers included managed workshop space, industry-education links, secondments and free advice to inner city businesses, and are all being followed up.
    In view of the success of these presentations, I have decided to hold an additional one, for the east midlands, on Tuesday 6 December.
    Mr. Wardle: I am grateful for that reply. Is it not encouraging that the private sector's response to "Action for Cities" has been so positive? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the CBI's recent publication "Initiatives beyond Charity" and the work of business in the community are particularly helpful in that regard?
    Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend. I want to add a few words about the work of Phoenix and, not least, the work of chambers of commerce up and down the country. All those signs of private sector involvement and a recognition of the economic advantages, as well as other factors, to the private sector are very welcome.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Chancellor agree that for the Government to spend thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money on giving free breakfasts to business people while Bradford Tory council is increasing the cost of school dinners to 80p a day tells us all that we need to know about Conservative party values and priorities? If he wishes to dodge answering that question, will he tell the House how the Bradford Tories' plans to sack 9,000 men and women will revitalise Bradford's inner city areas?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That has very little to do with breakfast, I would say.
    Mr. Newton: I would not wish to dissent from your judgment, Mr. Speaker, that the question had very little to do with Bradford. Having visited Bradford and seen the major redevelopment now under way by Gratton of what was formerly a collection of derelict 19th century sites—and which is one of the most impressive pieces of housing renovation that I have seen—I have no doubt that the Government's programmes are having their effect.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to get business enmeshed in the initiatives has been a most useful
    286
    exercise? However, will he carry out an important task? Will he liaise closely with the Department of Education and Science and his ministerial colleagues there to ensure that the third city technology college gets off the ground in the near future? It is promoted mainly by a large national retailing group in the Bradford area and it will do a lot of good for general urban regeneration in the area as well as for initiatives taken by my right hon. Friend's Department.
    Mr. Newton: I shall continue to liaise closely with my colleague the Secretary of State for Education and Science and with other relevant colleagues, and I shall draw their attention to what my hon. Friend has said today.

    British Shipbuilders
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the chairman of British Shipbuilders Ltd; and what subjects were discussed.
    Mr. Newton: I last met the chairman of British Shipbuilders on 17 October. We discussed a range of issues of current interest to the corporation, including the position on the disposal of its subsidiary companies.
    Dr. Godman: It is not for me to praise the chairman of British Shipbuilders—he might suffer a wage cut as a result—but may I say to the Minister that one of the proposed sales, Clark Kincaid, would be aided immeasurably if the yard were to secure the Kvaerner engine order? Will the Minister give every support to Mr. John Lister with regard to the order for the Mauritian ferry? I believe that there is aid and trade provision agreement funding to be obtained for that ferry. Both these questions are of critical importance to my constituents who work in Kincaid and Ferguson. May I remind the Minister that when those yards are sold off, as with other acquisitions, people's lives are bought by the purchaser, so let us have decent terms and conditions for the employees?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that discussions are going on with Kvaerner about the engine to which he refers. I cannot comment on the exact position in the negotiations, but I am sure that his words will have been noted. As for the ferry for Mauritius, I had some discussions recently with the Mauritian Government, which touched on that matter, among others, and it is clear that there is a real interest in the possibility of that ferry. Undoubtedly there will be keen competition for it. If, as we all hope, privatisation is successfully achieved, the terms and conditions of the work force after privatisation must be a matter for negotiation between the parties.
    Mr. Clay: In recent years, the Minister's predecessors used to tell the House that British shipyards had to close because they had no orders. What does the Minister believe the British people would think of a Minister who closed a shipyard that had the imminent prospect of two orders worth over £200 million, one of which had been withdrawn from a shipyard in Korea to be built at North-East Shipbuilders Ltd. in Sunderland?
    Mr. Newton: Part of the answer to the question that the hon. Gentleman asked me is that it would depend on the prospects of those ships being built at a profit rather than a loss, against a background where the history has been

    287
    one of massive losses incurred by British Shipbuilders over the years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least acknowledge that.
    Mr. Gould: Does the Minister accept that there is now unmistakeable evidence of an upturn in world demand for shipping and that the NESL yard in Sunderland is the European yard that is best equipped and best placed to take advantage of it? In those circumstances, does he not accept that to close that yard now would be an act of industrial vandalism?
    Mr. Newton: Part of the answer to the hon. Gentleman is precisely that which I have just given to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay). One must judge the position against the background of the likelihood that the ships will be built so that a profit and real jobs are provided. One must also look at the longer-term prospects, not just at the reports that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) mentioned.
    Perhaps it will be helpful if I say clearly to the House that British Shipbuilders received a number of bids for North-East Shipbuilders Ltd. by the deadline of 30 September, which are still being evaluated. Further additional information has also been submitted by some of the bidders, including a recent amendment to one of the bids. The Government are, of course, concerned—I assure the hon. Member for Dagenham again of that—to ensure that every avenue has been explored before a decision is taken. I have therefore asked John Lister, the chairman of British Shipbuilders, to invite each of the bidders to submit any final amendments that they wish to have considered by noon on Friday 28 October. Thereafter, I shall make a full statement to the House as soon as the evaluation is complete.

    British Aerospace and Austin Rover
    Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the chairmen of British Aerospace and Austin Rover; and what subjects were discussed.
    Mr. Newton: Neither my predecessor nor I have met either chairman in recent months.
    Mr. Hoyle: Will the Minister arrange a meeting with the chairmen of British Aerospace and Rover to discuss future plant closures? Will he remind them that when the Government sold British Aerospace to Austin Rover at a giveaway price of £150 million it was to produce a British motor industry using British components and providing employment, not to enable British Aerospace to engage in asset-stripping on a grand scale?
    Mr. Newton: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Select Committee that has been examining the matter. I think that, if only as a member of that Committee—which I understand is considering some further interviews—he might well consider it improper were I to respond to some of his questions.
    Mr. Grylls: The Labour party is critical of British Aerospace for selling some property which is in excess of its requirements, the proceeds from which it will presumably then use to invest in and improve its business and that of Rover. If Rover were still in the public sector, however, Labour would be calling for more money to be
    288
    put in by the taxpayer. Is that not typical of Labour's double standards, given that the effect of both would be the same?
    Mr. Newton: It must also be said that for everyone discussing the matter the key consideration must be to do everything possible to ensure the long-term viability of all the operations for those who work in them. It is to that that we must direct our main attention.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: When the right hon. Gentleman meets the chairman of British Aerospace, will he raise with him that company's behaviour towards its subsidiary Royal Ordnance plc, and in particular the closures at Patricroft and Bishopton? Does he not agree that it is ludicrous for the manufacturing industry in this country to be hit in this way again, so that we become dependent on outside suppliers for munitions?
    Mr. Newton: I cannot agree with the hon. Lady that plans which I understand are designed to improve the long-term viability and competitiveness of Royal Ordnance are against the interests of those who work in the industry. Obviously there are points of argument about whether such plans work towards that objective, but, as I have said, it is the objective that we should all have in mind.
    Sir Hal Miller: I hope that discussions between the Minister and the chairman will be less frequent following privatisation, and that they will be confined largely to matters in which the Government can act, such as the removal of trade and institutional barriers. But may I ask what progress has been made in discussions in Europe about the French threat to ban imports of cars made at Longbridge for Honda?
    Mr. Newton: I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact and up-to-date report, but if I may I shall write to him about it.
    Mr. Stott: When the Minister next meets the chairman of British Aerospace, will he ask what is his view of the British Airways decision to buy the American Boeing aircraft instead of the European Airbus, in which British Aerospace has a 20 per cent. share and for which the British taxpayer provided a substantial amount in launch-aid? Will he also ask what the decision will do for the long-term job prospects of those employed in the Airbus programme in British Aerospace? Does he not think that British Airways' decision is damaging, unpatriotic and a kick in the teeth for British industry?
    Mr. Newton: If I have the opportunity I shall be more than happy to ask the chairman of British Aerospace for his views, but I shall also want to ask the chairman of British Airways for his views and his assessment of the effects on the company of its decisions.
    Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Patrick Thompson, No. 16.
    Several Hon. Members: What about No. 13?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have had notification that No. 13 is not to be asked. I call Mr. Patrick Thompson.
    Mr. Madden rose—
    Mr. Skinner rose—
    Mr. Haynes rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have had notification that Question No. 13 is not to be asked. [Interruption.] Mr. Thompson.

    Research and Technology Initiative
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the response to his Department's research and technology initiative.
    Mr. Forth: There has been a very encouraging response —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is perfectly in order for an hon. Member to remove his question. It is not a matter for me and it is in order.
    Mr. Haynes: The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has been got at.
    Mr. Forth: There has been a very encouraging response to the research and technology initiative since its launch on 12 January. I have arranged for a short note to be published in the Official Report today—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. A point of order does not arise on this.—[Interruption.] Order. However, I think that it would be helpful if an hon. Member who is not moving his question is not in the Chamber. Mr. Forth.
    Mr. Forth: There has been a very encouraging response to the research and technology initiative since its launch on 12 January. I have arranged for a short note to be published—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This takes up time at Question Time. I have already ruled that a point of order cannot arise on such a matter. Mr. Forth.
    Mr. Forth: There has been a very encouraging response to the research and technology initiative since its launch on 12 January. I have arranged for a short note to be published in the Official Report today, outlining progress on the programmes in more detail.
    Mr. Thompson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply and for the encouraging news. Does he agree that if we are to compete successfully in Europe and elsewhere much more needs to be done, not least in the education and recruitment of skilled scientists, engineers and technicians.
    Mr. Forth: I agree with my hon. Friend. He will be aware of the education and enterprise initiative, recently launched jointly by three Government Departments, the principal aim of which is to do precisely what my hon. Friend has asked—to bring industry and education more closely together, to encourage understanding and mix their skills so that we may progress further in the development of the required skills in industry.
    Mr. Ingram: Will the Minister comment on the difficulty that he is experiencing in the privatisation of the national engineering laboratory at East Kilbride? Does he agree that, given those difficulties, it would be better for NEL to remain in the public sector, where it has successfully served industry for the past 40 years?
    Mr. Forth: The future of NEL is still being considered and discussions are still continuing. I believe that it is right that we should continue to explore the best possibilities for giving NEL, and any other facility, the most promising and positive future. That is what my Department and the Secretary of State have in mind as we continue to look at the matter.
    Mr. Hind: As part of the research and technology initiative, will my hon. Friend consider—[Interruption.] As part of the research and development initiative will my hon. Friend consider the technology enterprise—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us settle down now, as we have important questions to consider.
    Mr. Hind: Will my hon. Friend consider the technology enterprise trust, which is now operating in Manchester, and which is funded by private enterprise? As a result of that trust, teams of experts go into universities and advise academics on patents, registration, product licences and on obtaining further research funds to expand with a view to going into production. That is an idea that could be spread throughout the country, and private enterprise has an important part to play in that.
    Mr. Forth: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the attention of the House to something that is obviously a good example of the way in which the private sector can work positively together with further and higher education, to the benefit of all. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be delighted to know that that is in tune with the developments that my Department is trying to encourage.
    Dr. Bray: In considering the proposals received under the research and technology initiative, does the DTI try to pick winners, or does it try to sabotage them? Surely the fiasco of the attempted sale of the national engineering laboratory shows the ignorance of the Secretary of State, the true state of engineering research in this country and its need for serious support.
    Mr. Forth: I find it difficult to understand why the hon. Gentleman should so criticise a move designed to recognise that those closest in their work to the requirements of industry should be given greater freedom and flexibility to work ever more closely with industry, to the mutual benefit of all. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would also recognise that it is to the long-term benefit of employees involved in research-related activities that they should be given the freedom and responsibility to work more closely with their customers who pay for their work. I hope, in recognising that, that he will understand that the future of NEL will be more secure against that background than it has been in the past.
    Following is the information:
    THE RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE PROGRESS REPORT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY
    The research and technology initiative of the Department of Trade and Industry comprises three main areas—support for collaborative research, support for new technology ideas in small firms and technology transfer initiatives. This note outlines progress up to end September 1988 since the launch of current DTI policies in the White Paper "DTI—the department for Enterprise" (Cm. 278) in January 1988.
    Collaborative Research
    Support for collaborative research is provided under four main headings:
    LINK.
    An across-Whitehall initiative of pre-competitive, industrially relevant research undertaken by companies jointly with the science base. DTI is one of the main contributors to LINK and, of the 10 programmes launched since January 1988, nine have DTI participation, amounting to over £35 million. Twenty individual projects are at an advanced stage of processing and over 130 more are under discussion. Major LINK programme areas include advanced electronics and biotechnology.
    EUREKA.
    Industrially led projects with European Community and other European partners. EUREKA has been in existence since 1985. There are currently 214 approved EUREKA projects, of which 74, with total costs of £1·1 billion, involve United Kingdom partners; 22 are United Kingdom led. United Kingdom organisations have expressed interest in participating in a further 21 projects and another 13 proposals involving United Kingdom organisations are in circulation seeking partners. Since January 1988, nearly £9 million of DTI funding has been committed to 16 projects. A further 30 are in various stages of consideration. Examples of major EUREKA projects are high definition television and lasers for manufacturing.
    Advanced technology programmes.
    These promote longer-term industrially led collaborative projects between United Kingdom companies in advanced technologies. Eleven of these programmes have been launched, some having been announced before January 1988. A hight level of interest has been generated, in particular for the new programmes in information technology. Over 800 outline projects were submitted in response to the call for proposals for the IT programmes. Examples of other important areas featured in advanced technology programmes are superconductivity and advanced robotics.
    General Industrial Collaborative Projects.
    These bring together companies, particularly small companies, and research organisations including Government research establishments and research and technology organisations on a variety of projects or programmes of research which would not meet the criteria of the other schemes. To date, nine programmes at RTOs have been launched as well as four programmes at other bodies. Over 130 new projects are either running or under consideration.
    Overall response to the initiative has been good, with well over 1,100 proposals, either firm or in outline, having been received for the programmes of collaborative research.
    Small Firms
    Support is provided for the development of new technology ideas in small firms under the SMART—small firms merit award for research and technology—scheme. This is a competition for firms with under 200 employees. Over 900 applications were submitted for the awards of £37,500. The applications are in the final stages of judging and winners will be announced in November. Due to the high quality of the entries, it is expected that the number of awards will be increased from the 100 originally planned.
    Technology Transfer
    DTI technology transfer activities include promotion of understanding and take-up of modern technologies and best practice techniques, various programmes of technology transfer from overseas and the establishment of the regional technology centres jointly with DES and the training agency. RTCs have now been established in most parts of the country. Subject to demonstration of industrial support, it is expected that further RTCs will be set up in early 1989. It is hoped that they will all be linked by a national network over the next year. A review of a number of DTI technology transfer activities has recently taken place and detailed announcements will be made later in the year. The new programmes will include a £12 million three-year programme to promote greater awareness in industry and commerce of the importance of open systems standards and the benefits that this can bring through the greater inter-working of IT systems.

    Manufacturing Investment
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the most recent quarterly figure for investment in manufacturing; and what percentage change this represents since the second quarter in 1979.
    Mr. Hayes: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the latest figures he has for investment by manufacturing industry; and what were the comparable figures one year ago.
    Mr. Forth: In the second quarter of 1988, investment in manufacturing industry, including leased assets, is estimated to have been £2·9 billion at 1985 prices and seasonally adjusted. That represents an increase of 13 per cent. over the figure of £2·6 billion for the corresponding quarter of 1987 and increases of 3 per cent. and 56 per cent. respectively over the second quarter figures for 1979 and 1983. The figure of £2·9 billion is the highest ever recorded for manufacturing investment in a single quarter.
    Mr. Pike: Is not the true picture very different from the one painted by the Minister, as in constant figures the investment has only just reached nationally what it was in 1979? Is it not a fact that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs said last week that since 1979 investment in constant terms is 38 per cent. down in the north-west region? Is not most of the investment going to the south-east and the London area? What will the Government do for the regions, and what will high interest rates do for the future of investment?
    Mr. Forth: I would rather look to the future than to the past, which is what the hon. Gentleman is in the habit of doing. I draw his attention to the fact that the recent Confederation of British Industry quarterly industrial trends survey shows that of 1,200 manufacturing companies, 40 per cent. plan to increase spending on plant and machinery over the next 12 months. That does not suggest to me that there is a problem. It is clear to all that, given the record levels of profitability of United Kingdom industry, the levels of investment are not only at record levels, but are likely to remain so. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will concede that we have liberated regional policy from the groove of automaticity where it has been stuck—to which Opposition Members are so devoted—by giving it a new impetus through our consultancy initiatives, which are spread throughout the regions.
    Mr. Hayes: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box. Will he remind the whingers and prophets of doom on the Opposition Benches that if they want a good example of international confidence in manufacturing industry in this country they should look to Ford in Wales?
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words and for bringing to the attention of the House the fact that, such is the continuing confidence of major businesses such as the Ford Motor company in the future of the United Kingdom, and such is their confidence in our economic stability and the productivity improvements that we have seen recently, that they—unlike Opposition Members—are continuing to express confidence about the future of our economy and continuing to invest at record levels.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that whereas manufacturing investment may certainly have brought down unemployment in counties such as Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire, where the unemployment rate is about 3 per cent., in areas such as north-west Wales unemployment still approaches 20 per cent.? When are we going to see some of the manufacturing investment which is apparently working such miracles?
    Mr. Forth: I am disappointed, as ever, that Opposition Members persist in wanting to point out the difficulties rather than the opportunities. Unemployment throughout the country has been falling now for a record period. It is falling in all regions of the country. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in trying to attract investment to his area as well as to the rest of the country, so that everyone can benefit in the boom in the economy and the boom in investment.
    Mr. David Shaw: My hon. Friend makes his points well. Does he agree that since 1979 investment has been productive, which is shown by the fact that we are producing more in manufactures today than in 1979, and that that increased production is being achieved by a labour force of 5 million instead of 7 million, helping Britain to become more competitive and successful in the world economy?
    Mr. Forth: Yes, indeed. It is a welcome change to hear from the Conservative Benches—something that is positive and encouraging. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Such interruptions are hardly fair to other hon. Members with questions on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Forth: When what I just said is punctuated in Hansard it will make a lot more sense.
    I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. He pointed out correctly that the record improvements in productivity, linked to those in investment, mean a much better future for Britain than we have often seen in the past.
    Mr. Blair: As we are talking about investment in manufacturing, will the Minister consider the plight of those who invested unintentionally in various dubious manufacturing activities through Barlow Clowes? Does he agree that it is shameful that Conservative Members are prepared to issue press releases about that, but are not prepared to have their Minister questioned in the House of Commons?
    Mr. Forth: As you pointed out, Mr. Speaker, it is always entirely up to hon. Members whether to put their questions. If the hon. Gentleman were to examine today's Order Paper in more calm than excitement, he would see that for varying reasons many hon. Members have not been in a position to put their questions. Therefore, to single out any one from the Order Paper is invidious. [HON. MEMBERS: "They were absent."]
    On Barlow Clowes, I refer the hon. Gentlemen to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in answer to a question yesterday. I believe that that is the position.

    Filature du Hainault
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the latest position regarding the French Government's allegedly illegal subsidy to Filature du Hainault to manufacture polypropylene filament yarn.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): The EC Commission announced on 27 July that it had approved the French Government's proposed aid to Filature du Hainault and that that aid did not conflict with the objectives of the Community's synthetic fibres discipline. I wrote to my hon. Friend about the Commission's decision on 15 August.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend share my dismay and disappointment at the decision? Is this not another case where the French Government have pulled a fast one? Does he not realise that this will result in unfair competition for two firms, F. Drake and Company of Golcar and Drakes Fibres, in my constituency? Will he do everything in his power to ensure that such an illegal subsidy is not allowed in future?
    Mr. Clark: As my hon. Friend will recall from the detailed correspondence that we had on this, there were, apparently, technical distinctions between the type of polypropylene yarn being produced by the company at Valenciennes and existing production, where there is over-capacity and where the Commission does not allow aid. However, I have told my hon. Friend that I share his anxiety and doubts about this. It would be easier for me to comment were the Commission's reasons to be made available. Although the decision was announced on 27 July, and although the reasons are encompassed in a document only five pages long—
    Mr. Skinner: What is the Minister going to do?
    Mr. Clark: If the hon. Gentleman would let me explain, I would welcome his comments. Although the document is only five pages long, it is not yet available for comment because of delays in the Commission's translation section.

    British Launcher Rocket
    Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to meet representatives of the aerospace industry to discuss the development of a new British launcher rocket.
    Mr. Newton: No, Sir, and no such meeting has been requested.
    Mr. Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the advance technology engine work that the Royal Ordnance rocket division of British Aerospace has recently completed for the European Space Agency? Is he also aware that it is in a very strong position to obtain that contract, but for a lack of funding, and can he say whether that funding will be forthcoming?
    Mr. Newton: I cannot give an answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's question, but I shall look at what he has said in the light of his obvious keen interest in the matter.

    Scotch Whisky
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to meet with representatives of the Scotch whisky industry; and what matters will be discussed.
    Mr. Alan Clark: My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has accepted an

    295
    invitation to lunch next week from the Scotch Whisky Association. Discussion is expected to concentrate on overseas trade matters.
    Mrs. Ewing: While being sure that the Secretary of State will have a very hospitable lunch with the Scotch Whisky Association, may I ask that he deals in particular with the issue of Japanese taxation of Scotch whisky
    296
    imports? Is the Minister satisfied that progress is being made in the light of the recent GATT negotiations, and can we expect further progress?
    Mr. Clark: Yes, we are satisfied that the Japanese proposals for reforming their liquor tax system, when and if implemented, will greatly improve the ability of Scotch whisky to compete in the market on fair and equal terms. The date for implementation is agreed as 1 April 1989.

Hazardous Substances (Illegal Dumping)
3.30 pm
Mr. Ian McCartney: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"an accident caused by the illegal dumping of a hazardous substance."
Yesterday evening I was notified of a horrific accident involving five children of constituents of mine living in the Marus bridge area of Wigan. Jamie and Carmelle Anderson, aged 14 and 7, Darren Cook and Andrew James, aged 14, and Simon Young, aged 13, were engulfed in a fireball after a metal drum containing a lethal cocktail of toluene, xylene and menthanol exploded. Jamie, Carmelle and Darren are currently gravely ill in the burns unit of Booth Hall hospital near Manchester with up to 80 per cent. burns to their bodies. Andrew and Simon received burns to their hands and arms and, thankfully, they are comfortable. I am sure that the whole House will join with me in sending a message to those children and their parents, with its best wishes for the fullest possible recovery from their horrific injuries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I have held preliminary discussions with Mr. John Wade, deputy director of the Health and Safety Executive. His initial response to the accident was immediate and his advisers attended the site of the incident, which occurred on scrubland near the children's homes. The initial investigation report indicates that the mixture of highly inflammable industrial waste had been dumped illegally. It is likely that the materials were used in the garage trade. The remains of a drum were found close to a "No tipping" sign erected on the land by Wigan metropolitan borough council.
The House must be concerned as to how many more such drums exist and where they have been dumped. It beggars belief that such an inflammable time bomb is ticking away, and that those five children may be the first in a series of innocent victims, either in Wigan or in the north-west in general. I ask the person or persons who dumped that toxic bomb to come forward and help the police and the Health and Safety Executive with their inquiries, and to advise them if any further waste has been dumped illegally and where it is before other innocent people are maimed or killed.
This horrific accident has again placed sharply in focus the need for tougher Government action to prevent illegal dumping of highly dangerous and toxic substances in this country.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the House for listening with such courtesy and patience. I have personally found the circumstances of this tragedy distressing. My words are in no way adequate in voicing my feelings and those of the families concerned about the condition of the children affected and the horrific circumstances surrounding them, and the feelings of their parents about what has happened to their children as a result of disgraceful and inexcusable action by the person or persons concerned, who have flouted the law and have allowed such a disgraceful thing to happen.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"an accident caused by the illegal dumping of a hazardous substance."
I have listened with deep concern to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House. I hope that he will find other means of bringing the matter before the House.

Barlow Clowes (Parliamentary Question)
3.35 pm
Mr. Tony Blair: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware of the tremendous interest in the Barlow Clowes affair. Through you, may we ask for an explanation of the puzzling case of the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and his question No. 13 on the Order Paper relating to Barlow Clowes? The hon. Gentleman was present but the question was absent. Are we to have an explanation, or are we to assume that Ministers simply do not wish to be questioned on the matter today?
Sir Peter Emery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I withdrew the question because I happen to believe that, in the light of all that I am trying to achieve, what is now required is a degree of quiet and calm for a short period so that we can determine whether people outside this House can do something to assist the many thousands of investors in Barlow Clowes. Nobody is more interested in achieving that than I am. If politicans would be a little quieter at the moment, it might just be possible that we shall be successful.
Mr. Speaker: If hon. Members wish to withdraw a question, it would be a courtesy to the House if they let the Table Office know the evening before so that the question is not printed on the Order Paper. That would, I think, be for the convenience of other hon. Members who may wish to come to the Chamber in the hope of taking part in the discussion on that question.
Sir Peter Emery rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a stricture on the hon. Gentleman. I am seeking to be helpful.
Sir Peter Emery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. An hon. Member has the right to withdraw a question at any time until Question Time. No impoliteness was intended to the Minister, whom I informed the moment that I knew that I wished to withdraw the question. It must surely be for an hon. Member to judge what is best overall. That is what I did, and any other hon. Member would also do that.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Not on that matter, which I think we have exhausted.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is it a different matter?
Mr. Skinner: Well, it is going off at a tangent—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we want to do that today. We have a heavy day before us, and there are six prayers.

Extension of Civil Justice
3.37 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to permit the conclusion of agreements between solicitors or barristers and their clients in civil cases under which the latter may be represented on a contingency fee basis, and to remove all restrictions inhibiting such practice.
Many of us are very proud of our system of justice, and we are right to be proud of most aspects of the system. However, there is one aspect of our civil justice system that rightly calls for the concern of this House. Quite simply, the problem is that too few people have access to it.
If one is a multi-millionaire there can be little difficulty in commissioning all the legal services required. If one is poor enough to qualify for legal aid, that assures representation—although not necessarily exactly the sort of representation that would be chosen if one could pay for it. However, for the broad mass of the population who fall between those two categories a decision to seek justice by going to law is, in effect, a decision to toy with the risk of financial catastrophe for both that person and his family. The cost of litigation has become so high that a few days in court can wipe out—or even more than wipe out—all that a hard-working man or woman may have accumulated throughout a lifetime.
That position is most unsatisfactory and we should do something about it. It is unsatisfactory for two reasons —first, for those who lose because they cannot go to justice when they are entitled to do so and are therefore denied the justice that they would otherwise have. I think of the victims of accidents—perhaps of transportation companies, both public and private, which have been operating in breach of safety procedures—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Libel.
Mr. Davies: One thinks of libel, the victims of professional negligence, the victims of medical negligence, and the victims of flawed pharmaceutical products. All such people, if they fall within the broad mass category of the population, would find it exceedingly difficult and risky to go to law.
Some hon. Members may already be afraid, and some hon. Members may hope, that I am about to propose some measure arbitrarily to reduce the cost of litigation and to reduce legal fees by legislative fiat. I reassure hon. and learned Members who may be concerned about my intentions that they are certainly not of a nefarious and villainous kind. My proposed solution is far better. It is simply that, when they wish and when their clients so choose, lawyers should be allowed to come to an arrangement to represent their clients, whether as solicitors or barristers, on the basis of contingency fees. That is to say that a solicitor or barrister would agree to take a pre-arranged share of any damages that his client might be awarded in the event of his suit being successful. In the event of failure, he would take nothing—no win, no fee.
I emphasise that what I am proposing is a purely permissive measure. It is not prescriptive in any way. It would be open to lawyers and their clients to continue to come to an arrangement on the basis of their conventional time-based fees and other fees that operate at present. But let us make no mistake about it: my Bill would outlaw

301
—perhaps I should say disbar—the restrictive practices currently operated by the Law Society and by the Bar Council that prevent their members from coming to that arrangement even when they might wish to do so.
I shall deal briefly with the objections that are sometimes raised in respect of contingency fees. The first is that it would undermine lawyers' objectivity. That is a strange objection. Our whole system of adversarial justice is based on the recognition that lawyers are not objective —they are on the side of their clients, and quite properly so—and that it is their obligation to pursue their clients' interests with all the energies and skills at their disposal as far as they can within the law. That is an important qualification.
The obligations of lawyers to the law and the formal responsibility of barristers to a court would not be changed in any way by the proposals in my Bill. I would regard it as an extreme and unacceptable slur on the legal profession to assume that, because lawyers are materially indifferent to the results of their actions on behalf of their clients, they are less loyal to their clients than they would be under a contingency fee system.
The second objection is that contingency fees would bring forth an escalation of damages awarded in civil cases. That objection is based on a false analogy with the system in the United States and the confusion between two quite separate and distinct features of the United States legal system. They have contingency fees in the United States, but they have something else which we do not have and which I would not seek to introduce, and that is juries fixing damages. Juries fixing damages, not contingency fees, have led to the great inflation of damages in the United States.
Under my proposals, arrangements for lawyers' remuneration and the formula used by a lawyer to arrange his remuneration with his client would remain as it should be—entirely irrelevant to the principles on which a jury fixes damages.
A third objection to contingency fees is that they would bring forth a great deal of unnecessary and purely vexacious litigation. That objection rests on the most pessimistic assumptions about either the level of competence or the rationality of the legal profession.
302
Surely, unless one makes the most perverse assumptions about lawyers—I have the highest regard for their professional competence and rationality—the effect of my Bill would be exactly the reverse. No lawyer in his right mind would take on a contingency fee basis a case which was purely frivolous or any case other than one which he had a good chance of winning, and so was, in his professional judgment, a good case.
My Bill would abolish the conflict of interests between lawyers and their clients that exists under our present system. It is without a doubt a purely theoretical conflict, but under the present system a lawyer being indifferent to the result of a case might be considered to have an incentive to push his client to pursue a frivolous or hopeless action because he would nevertheless receive a fee. That is a purely theoretical danger, and I do not suppose for a moment that any lawyer has ever fallen victim to that temptation. The integrity of the legal profession has been and undoubtedly will continue to be more than proof against such temptation. Nevertheless, it is better to abolish a temptation than to resist it. That is the principle which we as legislators should adopt in this case.
My Bill would promote the interests of justice and the confidence of the British people that they will have access to civil justice if ever they need it. It would be in the interests of lawyers and their clients, and I have great pleasure in commending it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Quentin Davies.

Extension of Civil Justice
  EXTENSION OF CIVIL JUSTICE
  Mr. Quentin Davies accordingly presented a Bill to permit the conclusion of agreements between solicitors or barristers and their clients in civil cases under which the latter may be represented on a contingency fee basis, and to remove all restrictions inhibiting such practice: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to he read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 219.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Merchant Shipping (Weighing of Goods Vehicles and other Cargo) (Application to non-UK Ships) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

  Questions to Ministers
  3.48 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I tried to catch your eye earlier on this matter. You will agree that Question Time is precious to Back Benchers because it is our one opportunity to question Ministers on specific subjects. You will notice that the last question we reached today, No. 21, was on the important topic of the Scotch whisky industry. That question cannot be put to a Scottish Minister and must be answered by the United Kingdom Department that deals with these matters. You will also be aware that during Question Time Members were not given an opportunity to ask questions because of the many interruptions. That reduced the time available. Otherwise—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. But for several questions which were withdrawn today we probably would not have got as far as question 21.
  Mr. Walker: That does not change the point I am trying to make, which is that if hon. Members interrupt questions, however justified their reasons may be, Back Benchers suffer. Usually it is Back Benchers who make the noise, and this seems to me an opportunity to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to that fact. I drew attention to the question about Scotch whisky, but my point applies to any question; it just happened to be one that is important for Scotland, and that is why I drew your attention to it.
  Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recollect, as he was here at Question Time, that I drew attention to the very matter he has raised: the more interruptions we have during Question Time, the slower we proceed.

Orders of the Day
  Housing (Scotland) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
Clause 2

  GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF SCOTTISH HOMES
  Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 4, line 19, at end insert—
  "( ) Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 (local authorities: general statutory duties) shall apply to Scottish Homes as it applies to a local authority."
  3.51 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 places local authorities under a statutory obligation to carry out their duties with regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups. The Government and, I hope, the House, agree wholeheartedly with the terms of that section and consider that the new housing agency, Scottish Homes, should be subject to the same provisions. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: We welcome the fact that the Race Relations Act 1976 will apply to Scottish Homes. I wonder whether the principle could he extended to the composition of the agency? It seems unfortunate that representative Scots seem to be excluded and discriminated against in that composition. The Government have had to go to New York to find a chairman for it, and to England to find a chief executive, and another member of Scottish Homes, our old friend the Earl of Ancram, was last seen carrying a carpet bag around Epping Forest. It would be useful if the members of Scottish Homes could have some rights—if there could be discrimination in favour of people who are resident in Scotland, who intend to continue to reside there and who are representative of its people.
  This said, we obviously support the extension of the provisions of the Race Relations Act to Scottish Homes.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: With the leave of the House, I may say to the hon. Gentleman that the board of Scottish Homes represents a fair cross-section of housing interests in Scotland. Both the chief executive and the chairman were born in Glasgow council houses— [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should not be so disparaging about Glasgow, one of Scotland's great cities.
  Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4

  REGULATION OF HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS IN SCOTLAND AND TRANSFER TO SCOTTISH HOMES OF CERTAIN PROPERTY, RIGHTS, LIABILITIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF HOUSING CORPORATIONS
  Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 5, line 27, after "with" insert—"—(a)"
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 3.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The amendments have been tabled to correct an omission that is principally of a technical nature. As it stands, the Bill transfers to Scottish Homes all rights, liabilities and obligations relating to registered housing associations to which the Housing Corporation is entitled or subject, in cases in which an association is based in Scotland. But the corporation also has certain obligations in relation to land held by unregistered housing associations and those obligations should also be transferred to Scottish Homes in cases in which the land is in Scotland. These amendments will have that effect.
  Mr. Home Robertson: It is always nice to know what the effect of an amendment is. Presumably, if the Government go to the trouble of tabling an amendment and recommending its acceptance, it must have some effect. How many such unregistered housing associations are there in Scotland, and how much land under the ownership of the Housing Corporation may be affected?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman details now, but I shall certainly write to him and do so. This is a tidying-up amendment to make sure that proper procedures are observed.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.

Clause 16

  SECURITY OF TENURE
  Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 10, line 40, after first "subsection" insert
  ", subsection (1) of section [Right of succession of spouse] below,"
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  I take it, Mr. Speaker, that we can also discuss amendment (a) in lieu: Page 10, line 40, leave out 'or subsection (4) of section 43 below' and insert
  ',subsection (1) of section [Right of succession of spouse] below or section 3A of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this we will also discuss the following: Lords amendment No. 18:

New clause

  RIGHT OF SUCCESSION OF SPOUSE
  ".—(1) In any case where—

  (a) the sole tenant under an assured tenancy dies; and

  (b) immediately before the death the tenant's spouse was occupying the house as his or her only or principal home; and

  (c) the tenant was not himself a successor as explained in subsection (2) or (3) below,

  the tenant's spouse shall, as from the death and for so long as he or she retains possession of the house without being entitled to do so under a contractual tenancy, be entitled to a statutory assured tenancy of the house.
  (2) For the purposes of this section, a tenant was a successor in relation to a tenancy—

  (a) if the tenancy had become vested in him either by virtue of this section or under the will or intestacy of a previous tenant; or

  (b) if he was a statutory assured tenant by virtue of section 3A of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984; or

  (c) if at some time before the tenant's death the tenancy was a joint tenancy held by him and one or more other persons and, prior to his death, he had become the sole tenant by survivorship; or

  (d) in the case of a tenancy (hereinafter referred to as "the new tenancy") which was granted to him (alone or jointly with others) if—

  (i) at some time before the grant of the new tenancy he was, by virtue of paragraph (a), (b) or (c) above, a successor to an earlier tenancy of the same or substantially the same house as is let under the new tenancy; and

  (ii) at all times since he became such a successor he has been a tenant (alone or jointly with others) of the house which is let under the new tenancy or of a house which is substantially the same as that house.

  (3) No order for possession under Ground 7 of Schedule 5 to this Act shall be made—

  (a) in relation to a case to which this section relates by virtue of subsection (1) above; or

  (b) where the tenant's spouse succeeds to the tenancy under the will or intestacy of the tenant.

  (4) For the purposes of this section a person who was living with the tenant at the time of the tenant's death as his or her wife or husband shall be treated as the tenant's spouse."
  The proposed amendments to Lords amendment 18: (a), in line 5, leave out from 'house' to end of line 7.
  (b), in line 12, leave out from beginning to end ofline 31.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Amendment No. 4 made in another place, amended clause 16(1) of the Bill. That clause defines the circumstances in which a statutory assured tenancy arises, and amendment No. 4 added to the list the right of succession for the spouse of an assured tenant which Lords Amendment No. 18 introduces.
  However, the provision needs to be amended further because of the recasting of clause 43 and schedule 6 of the Bill with which Lords Amendments No. 38, 39 and 76 are concerned. This amendment does this.
  The Government amendment is a technical one to take account of changes to the provisions in succession made on succession to regulated tenancies in another place.
  Mr. Home Robertson: When the Minister disagrees with a Lords amendment it brings a whole new flavour to the concept of relationships between the two Houses, because his brother is the Duke of Hamilton. Therefore, this is something of a family dispute.
  The amendment deals with the right of a widow to succeed, and it has been portrayed by the Government as a concession. It shows how many concessions have been made to landlords against the interests of tenants in Scotland when the re-establishment of the right of a widow to succeed to the tenancy is presented by the Government as an important concession.

  307
  The Government's concession is little more than a fig leaf and greatly qualified because it applies only to the initial tenant's widow. Under subsection (2), the widow of a successor tenant will have no rights whatever. If a tenant dies and his widow succeeds to the tenancy and then remarries, the second spouse will have no rights and on another death the landlord would be able to repossess the house. That means that by no means all widows or widowers will be protected by the provision.
  I draw to the attention of the House the representations made by, among others, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations Ltd., expressing grave concern about the erosion of spouses' rights under the legislation. The amendment falls far short of what the federation called for and it is worried about the impact on future relationships between housing associations and tenants.
  The Lords amendment is a slight improvement, but the new legislation still represents a serious erosion of tenants' rights and security, and many widows will face summary eviction in Scotland under the new assured tenancy system. I commend my amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 18 because at least they would lift that threat. I should like to hear the Government's opinion of those amendments.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy us on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). I should like to ask the Minister about the position of a widow or widower of a tenant who had died. If I understand the Government's intentions correctly, the new spouse of that widow or widower would not be allowed to continue the tenancy of the house when his or her spouse died. I cannot understand the logic of that, because it would mean that the spouse had not only lost his or her partner but had lost the home as well. Is that what the Government intend to do to people? Do they not realise that in many cases the people involved will be elderly, because of the late marriage of a widow and a widower which often occurs?
  I can understand a lack of appreciation of these difficulties by people who live in several houses, none of which is let and all of which they own. Will the Government come into the real world and try to concern themselves with ordinary people for whom such a problem would be extremely serious?
  4 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: Will the Minister explain what is the present position in law? Is it the case that the succession of spouses is not affected by whether the person who has died succeeded to the tenancy from his previous spouse? There is a serious weakening of the statutory position under the Bill. At the moment there is no discrimination if one is the spouse of the tenant who died and one succeeds to that tenancy. However, that simple position is being eroded by the Government's amendment.
  I should like the Minister to clarify another point. If, for example, a tenant dies, the spouse remarries and there are children from that remarriage, is it the case, under what the Minister has suggested, that both the spouse who succeeds and the children of that second marriage will have no security of tenure and could be required by the
  308
  landlord to surrender the tenancy because of this amendment? I am worried that that may happen. In the guise of introducing technical amendments—the Minister actually said that it was a technical amendment—the Government are seriously undermining the position of tenants.
  I know that Lord Sanderson of Bowden, who has responsibility in the other place for Scottish housing, said that the purpose of the Bill was to build on the rights given to tenants in the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Act 1984 and not to take away tenants' rights. However, Labour Members do not believe that that will happen, and neither does the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, which said that the Government are giving only basic minimum rights to tenants under the new assured tenancies and short assured tenancies. What the Minister said seemed to confirm the SFHA's worries. I do not see how we can add to a tenant's rights, or secure tenant's rights by taking away rights that they already have in existing statutes, but that is what the Minister appears to be doing.
  In Scotland, widows and widowers who are left to pick up tenancies already have serious problems with which to deal. In my surgery last Friday night, I had two different cases. One lady came in and said that her husband had died, her grown-up family had left and she did not know how she could afford to heat the house, but if she went back on the waiting list she would be given a house in a part of a town to which she did not wish to move because of the neglect there resulting from lack of Government funds to local councils. She felt trapped in her house and unable to meet the heating bills and unsure whether she could heat her home over the winter. Another case was of a widow who had been left in a house with a huge garden which she did not know how she could cope with, but she did not want to move on to the waiting list because she could not be assured that she would get the kind of housing that she would want.
  The Minister is suggesting that in a number of cases, certainly in the private sector, people will not be able to stay in their houses and, as well as coping with the death of their spouses, they will have to cope with the problem of finding new accommodation for themselves, and perhaps for their families, because the Minister has taken away from them the right to succeed to the tenancy that their dead spouse had enjoyed.
  The Minister will have to explain why he can leave somebody in the position of having to cope not only with a family bereavement but with the problem of finding new accommodation for themselves and their families. The Minister is suggesting that we should agree to that, but I do not believe that any hon. Member would accept that diminution of the rights of tenants. That is particularly so in the private sector, of which Conservative Members claim to be in favour and which they want to encourage. Here, they are attacking private sector tenants and taking away their rights, which are taken for granted in the public sector. I should like to see the day when the Minister and the Tory Members start to give private sector tenants the same rights as those enjoyed by the public sector tenants.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said, and I find myself in sympathy with much of what he said about the problems of individuals who find themselves in houses that are unsuitable for their

  309
  requirements. That often happens if one is locked into the cycle of council accommodation. Frequently, children grow up and leave home—the normal events of life—parents are left, one dies, and the remaining parent is left with a property that contains more bedrooms and other rooms than are required.
  Quite often—the hon. Member for Dundee, East drew attention to this—people are left with large gardens with which they cannot cope. It would be marvellous if one could say that local authorities respond quickly to such situations, but, sad to say, the experience of most hon. Members is that local authorities often leave individuals in these circumstances for long periods, sometimes years, before transferring them to more suitable accommodation.
  I can speak from some experience of private letting. I grew up, in the early stages of my life, in a privately let house in Dundee. In those days, private landlords could get adequate returns on their lettings. My experience, and that of my family, was that the private landlord system worked sympathetically to the kind of problem to which the hon. Member for Dundee, East has drawn attention. However, much has happened since then. I see that the hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. I do not know whether he ever lived in such circumstances before the 1939 war, because if he did, he would know that I am talking about the period before the legislative changes that wrought havoc with private letting, certainly in Dundee.
  Interestingly, the legislation was intended to do good, but it had the opposite effect. It removed from the market place altogether private sector letting, which had successfully provided homes for the majority of tenanted premises, certainly in Dundee. I cannot talk about elsewhere, but in that city, which I know well, it worked. I hope—I would not go any higher than that—that the legislative changes in the Bill will do something to remove some of the imbalances that have occurred, and release more property for letting.
  I should like to think that, in doing so, we are taking on board the problems that were highlighted by the hon. Member for Dundee, East. I hope that the Lords amendment that we are rejecting and the amendment that we are putting in its place will provide a much more sympathetic regime for the kind of problems that the hon. Member for Dundee, East has highlighted. If that is not so, I shall be distressed because we must find a way to improve the lot of people who have to live in rented premises. We must ensure that the private sector, as well as the public sector, provides the right kind of accommodation in the right places and at the prices that people can afford.
  If all that happens, the Bill will be a success. If it does not and we do not leave a better position than we found, I shall he saddened. However, I am optimistic, because, having sat through the Standing Committee on the Bill and worked carefully through the Bill, I believe that much of what is in it is progressive. It is intended to improve the lot of people who have to live in the circumstances that we have been discussing. I am not interested in political rhetoric. It is easy to indulge in that, but I am much more concerned about the lot of those who will require sympathy, understanding and the opportunity, if it can be arranged, for a transfer to more suitable accommodation.
  Mr. Frank Doran: Like the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), I started life in a rented house—a council one built in the 1920s—but the conclusions that I reached about the necessity for public
  310
  housing are very different from his. In Committee, every time a tenant's right was removed, I referred to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) rightly made the distinction between the Government's attitude to tenants in the private sector and their attitude to those in the public sector. It seems that, while the latter are to be given rights, the main one being the right to buy their houses, when, under this Bill, they are forced into the private sector, such rights are removed. I do not understand that motivation. I do not see how it can be seen as an improvement of the rights of the individual in Scotland to remove rights when tenants are forced to transfer.
  The hon. Member for Tayside, North said that he did not want to indulge in rhetoric; he wanted to consider the facts. We must ask the Minister to give us some facts. In view of the Government's opposition to what appears to be a sensitive and apt Lords amendment, which more or less deals with the present position and gives some right of protection to spouses in rented accommodation, I am most concerned about the practical implications if the proposal is defeated. I want the Minister to tell us what the implications are for individuals and local authorities.
  The Government are encouraging the removal of housing stock from the public sector. We heard earlier this week—I am sure the matter will be raised later today—about the transfer of large numbers of Scottish Special Housing Association houses in the Borders to a new trust. That appears to be the future trend. We must consider the implications of the transfer of large numbers of houses to the private sector. The local authorities will have no houses left. It appears that they will not be given nomination rights in those transfers, but, as I understand it, they will still retain the obligation to house the homeless.
  If the Government have their way, we shall have a device that will create homelessness. It appears that the landlord will be entitled to remove a tenant, not because of the actions of that tenant—for example, in failing to pay the rent or because he is a bad or anti-social tenant—but for the simple reason that the person who was the formal tenant, in the sense that he or she held the lease, has died. That will be the sole reason for removing that person. He will not be entitled to stay in the house. The landlord may remove him for whatever purpose—for example, to sell the house or to let it to another tenant at a higher rent or on different leasing terms. Obviously, therefore, there will be an incentive for the landlord.
  The local authority will not have the necessary housing stock to rehouse that person. Even if the local authority has housing stock, what will be its obligaton to the tenant? Will he be given priority in terms of housing need? Under the present homeless persons legislation, a test of vulnerability is applied. Will that tenant be a vulnerable tenant, or will he be classified as intentionally homeless? What will be the tenant's situation under this newly created right to evict? The Government are giving landlords the right to evict tenants from their homes for the simple reason that the existing leaseholder has died.
  Mrs. Ray Michie: Perhaps the Minister will help me and explain whether, in the case of a family where a spouse or parents have died, a remaining member of the family will be allowed to succeed to the tenancy. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said, it is not always necessary to

  311
  rehouse someone because the rooms or the garden have become too large for them to maintain. Many families have lived and grown up in a public sector house and are sad and reluctant to leave it because it is their home.
  I am concerned that, for example, a 50-year-old son or daughter, who has been living with his or parents in that house, would be removed. It seems harsh that somebody who has lived in a house and loved his home all his life should suddenly find himself being put out. I should have thought that it was a great worry for many parents if they thought that, when they died, their child, of whatever adult age, was not able to succeed to the tenancy.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. George Galloway: The vast expanses on the Government Benches as we discuss the Bill are a visible, if silent, testimony to the ridiculousness of the Bill. I was ill-fated enough to be a member of the Committee that considered the Bill and similar circumstances prevailed then, with Conservative Members writing out their Christmas cards, sending letters to their constituents and disappearing down the Corridor. However, when the Division bell rang, they thundered back in their artificial majority, buttressed by London barristers who knew nothing about Scottish housing and cared even less about it. Four Conservative Members are present, yet, if a Division is called on this vital amendment, hundreds of Conservative Members who know nothing about this legislation will arrive to ram through in the Lobby the Government's proposals to attack Scottish housing.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Let me take up the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Committee and what I took to be his views on the conduct of Conservative Members in Committee. I trust that he will not suggest that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who is here today, were not active in Committee. If that is what he is suggesting, I suggest that he reads Hansard. He will find that, as I have endeavoured to do in every Committee of which I have been a member, I tried to participate constructively and to be helpful to Ministers and to the people who sent me to Parliament. I view that as a serious commitment, so I take the hon. Gentleman's comments as being out of place.
  Mr. Galloway: My comments are not at all out of place as I readily concede the omnipresence of the hon. Gentleman in Committee. He was so active and rabid in his contributions in Committee that we were contemplating bringing a straitjacket to restrain him from making attacks on tenants, local authorities and even on the berry pickers of Blairgowrie who felt the rough end of his tongue.
  For that reason, I wanted to follow the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman a few moments ago. I have heard him before on his trip down memory lane about the halcyon days of the private landlord. I too am from Dundee and used to deliver milk to the hon. Gentleman's house in Dundee.
  Mr. Walker: Not when I lived there.
  Mr. Galloway: That is why I did not doctor the milk, as I might otherwise have done. However, it was not the milk
  312
  of human kindness that I was delivering or that the hon. Gentleman has been delivering on the issue of Scottish housing, both in Committee and here today.
  The hon. Gentleman is taking a trip down a memory lane that does not exist. His memory is playing tricks on him. There never was a time when private landlordism provided the kind of services that he, in Committee and again today, has said it has. There never was a time when private landlords were in it for any other reason than to squeeze every last penny out of the poor people in their clutches who could not get out of their clutches. The private landlords in Dundee and throughout Scotland were bloodsuckers.
  The mask slips when we hear the hon. Member for Tayside, North. He revealed the real purpose of the Bill, which is to turn the clock back to the so-called halycon days when the private landlord was king. The Bill has nothing to do with liberating Scottish tenants or increasing the Scottish housing supply. Instead, it is all about giving some fast bucks to private landlords by resurrecting the housing system which existed, as the hon. Member for Tayside, North said, before the 1939 war. That was a revealing phrase. The Government are returning the pattern of housing tenure in Scotland to that which existed before the second world war.
  I was born in an attic in Atholl street, in the Irish quarter of Dundee, which is known as Tipperary. The address was No. 12A Athol] street. My mother and father and I spent the first part of my life in an attic in a slum tenement. My experience, therefore, is far more common than the mythical memory-lane experience of the hon. Member for Tayside. North. I have heard him in Committee set out the trip up The Hawkie and doon The Blackie, as we say in Dundee. It is true that there were tiled closes up The Hawkie and especially down The Blackie. The majority of tenants, however—hundreds of thousands in the private sector in Dundee and other cities—were not living in tiled closes in either The Hawkie or The Blackie. Instead, they were living in the rabbit warrens of the Overgate and the teeming slums of Hilltown, Hullgate and Lochee. It is to that pattern of housing, but in a sanitised form—literally, I hope, as well as metaphorically—that Conservative Members wish to take us.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will confirm that he was born after the legislation to which I referred was enacted. That is the legislation that was put on the statute book immediately after the 1945 war. That changes substantially the circumstances that I was talking about and the ones from which he suffered. I accept that he suffered.
  Mr. Galloway: I was born in 1954, an auspicious year in many ways. It is true that the legislation that was enacted by the Labour Government from 1945 to 1951 began to change the pattern of housing tenure in Scotland. It could not wipe out at a stroke the sort of slums that I am describing, but the Labour Government made efforts to get rid of them. The difference between that Government and this one is that the present Government seek to return us to the so-called halcyon days that existed before the 1939 war, to use the revealing phrase of the hon. Member for Tayside, North.
  The Government should be aware—I have written to them, and I am certain that other hon. Members have done so—that there is a great deal of anxiety in Scotland among

  313
  those who have heard rumours, perhaps misleading ones, about reduced rights of succession. I know that the Minister is a decent cove and will be concerned to set people's minds at rest. There is a specific problem for the spouse who succeeds on the death of her husband or of his wife. Such people are anxious and will be listening to the debate. They will he waiting for the Minister to give them the appropriate information. They will be anxious to know what their rights of succession will be, and the rights of their families, if they remarry.
  The Conservative party claims to be the party of marriage, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a marriage Budget earlier in the year. Are we to place barriers in the way of widows and widowers that will stop them marrying because of their fears that by so doing they will adversely affect their rights of succession? Are we to encourage widows and widowers to live outside marriage but with partners so as to safeguard their rights of succession?
  Surely the Minister is not that sort of person. When he responds, I hope that he will not say that he can meet the problem half way. I hope that he will send to those in Scotland who are anxious about this issue the message that the rights of succession of spouses who remarry will not be adversely affected and that the Government accept the amendments that seek to protect those rights.
  Sir Hector Monro: I am not clear what the main burden of the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) was all about. He should realise that there have been housing difficulties in Scotland for a very long time, and certainly since the war.
  It is no use blaming one Government or another. Whatever Government have been in power, those of us who have held constituency surgeries over many years have found that about 50 per cent. of those seeking advice have been raising housing issues, ranging from dampness to the lack of a house, and including the problems that result from having bad neighbours.
  It has been the prime worry of all hon. Members, local councils and Ministers that the housing stock in Scotland has been inadequate. It has not been of sufficient quality and there must be ways of improving it.
  When we seek ways of improving the housing stock, we end up with a Bill of this sort. It is disappointing that the Opposition have attacked a genuine attempt to improve the condition of the housing stock, thus adversely affecting the opportunities of those who wish to be tenants in Scotland under one guise or another. When we have an opportunity to improve matters through local authorities, various forms of private housing and Scottish Homes, for example, we should try to proceed constructively and not look on the black side of every proposal that is made. Most of the Government's proposals are the result of detailed consultation.
  Everyone who has participated in the debate seems to have claimed some connection with Dundee. I suppose that I must throw in my claim, for I was educated at Dundee. I attended a distinguished Dundee school of economics under the redoubtable Dr. Bowie. From time to time, the local council has had under its control hundreds of houses of poor quality which have been unoccupied, and that is the sort of thing that we want to try to avoid.
  The Minister is right to bring forward a Bill that is full of constructive ideas. It is wrong for the Opposition to spend the debate—this is what they did in Committee—
  314
  trying to shoot down every good idea, however advantageous each one may he to the people of Scotland, who must have the opportunity to live in better homes. The Bill's objective is to provide those homes for them, and that is why I support it.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the contribution of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran), who has temporarily left the Chamber. The Government are proposing disagreement with Lords amendment No. 4, which is essentially technical. We fully support Lords amendment No. 18, which gives the spouse of an assured tenant a statutory right to succeed for the tenancy.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) asked me to clarify the current position. The amendment applies only to assured tenants, and only the spouse of the first tenant succeeds. That is relevant also to the questions of the hon. Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and for Argyll and Bute ( Mrs. Michie).
  Mr. McAllion: What is the position before the Bill is enacted and implemented? Is it not that spouses of any tenant will succeed to the tenancy irrespective of whether they happen to be the first successor or second successor?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is correct that the Bill will narrow succession rights. That I am prepared to admit.
  The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) stated that the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations is expressing concern. Housing associations have every right to grant greater succession rights than exist in statutes if they wish, and I should expect them to do so. They are preparing a model tenancy agreement, which will be extremely important.
  4.30 pm
  During consideration of the Bill, we were ready to consider improvements at all stages, but the keynote of our policy was the revitalisation of the private rented sector, which now stands at approximately 6 per cent. Many organisations in Scotland were concerned about succession and how to get the balance right. The Government originally took the view that succession rights, like other tenancy terms, should be left for negotiation between tenant and landlord. I remain convinced that many landlords letting on assured tenancies will be happy to include such terms in their leases.
  However, we have accepted that when a tenant dies, his or her spouse is in a particularly vulnerable position and with that in mind we introduced Lords amendment No. 18, which allows a limited right of succession to a spouse of an original tenant who, immediately before the tenant's death, stayed with the tenant in a home that was their only or main home.
  I should like to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Dundee, East. We propose a limitation on the right of succession not because we do not recognise that the spouse of a tenant will also be in a vulnerable position on the tenant's death, but because excessive succession rights of the type proposed by the Opposition would hinder the expansion of the private rented sector. We have very much in mind the fact that almost 130,000 houses in Scotland are vacant, the majority being in the private sector. We want a considerable proportion of them to be brought back into use.
  Mr. Home Robertson: We know that the Minister is seeking to bend over backwards to encourage private landlords to rent so that they can profiteer and do more or less what they like. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged the vulnerability of a widow or widower at the time of bereavement. Will he confirm that the Government amendment would mean that the widow of a successor tenant could simply be summarily evicted?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is the position and the answer is yes, but it is important that a tenant entering a tenancy agreement should negotiate the best possible arrangements, taking the circumstances into account.
  What is wrong with the Opposition amendments to Lords amendment No. 18 is that they would give a tenant's spouse a right of succession even though she or he was not living in the house concerned, or used it as a second home. I do not see how that can be regarded as reasonable. The amendments of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) would open the door to the possibility of an unlimited series of statutory successions to the same assured tenancy. For that reason, the Government cannot accept the amendments.
  I listened carefully to the views expressed by Opposition Members and I recognise that they feel strongly about the issue, but we disagree with their amendments. As my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said, it is important to bring empty houses back into use and to revitalise the private rented sector. We believe that the greatest benefit to all those who are seeking homes of their own will derive from encouraging private landlords to let vacant property. That encouragement will not come about if we open the door to unlimited successions in the way that the Opposition propose.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: In the year and a bit since I have been in the House, I have not heard such a pathetic justification for a measure that will attack people who are faced with bereavement and give them the unenviable choice of trying to seek alternative accommodation, in the knowledge that if, having remarried, they pass on, their new husband or wife could not succeed to the house.
  It is an outrage that somebody who suffers bereavement and falls in love in later life—although it may not necessarily be in later life—will be affected in that way. We all have constituents—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) nodding—who have suffered bereavement. In Dundee and Aberdeen there have been tremendous catastrophes, which have left many young women widowed.
  If the widows of men who lost their lives in the Piper Alpha disaster lived in such tenancies, remarried at the age of 22, 23 or 24 and themselves suffered a catastrophe, their new husbands and any young children they had could be thrown out onto the streets by caring landlords such as those described by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and the Minister.
  Mr. Galloway: My hon. Friend seems to me to be putting his thumb on the nub of the issue. I appeal to the Minister to do better than the pitiful explanation that he gave. As Nye Bevan said—and it is a truism in politics —"Where there is death, there is hope."
  The Government seem to be saying that excessive succession rights—as the Minister called them—will be a
  316
  disincentive to the burgeoning of the private rented sector. That implies not only that people may remarry for the sake of securing rights of succession to a house but that they might do in a spouse to get their grubby hands on the tenancy.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is speaking in an intervention.
  Mr. Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for that most helpful intervention.
  We see in front of us a Minister who has been praised —wrongly, it seems—for being a compassionate man, but who, after 70 or 80 hours of debate in Committee and after more debate in the other place, comes to the House and tells us that widows and widowers who remarry while living in such statutorily assured tenancies and then die cannot pass on the tenancy to their husband or wife. The Minister has made an appalling admission.
  Mrs. Fyfe: Although it embarrasses me somewhat to mention it, I think that I should relate some of my own experience, which my hon. Friend may find helpful. I am a widow and when I suffered the loss of my husband, at least the security of my home was beyond question. If, in addition to that sorrow, I had had to be thrown out of my home, I think that I would have lost my mind.
  It is horrendous that Conservative Members could do this to secure the rights of private sector landlords. It is an outrage and I hope that the whole of Britain will notice it. It is unbelievable. However, the Minister has yet to explain in what way the private landlord benefits from having one tenant rather than another. He is saying clearly that private sector landlords matter more than people who are bereaved and are suffering.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind Members that an intervention must be a pertinent question or comment. They must not seek to speak a second time through an intervention.
  Mr. Griffiths: Let us consider the scenario that the hon. Member for Tayside, North and the Minister have described—not that of the past but that of today. The Minister told us that there are large numbers of empty houses in the private sector, which landlords are frightened to let in case widows move in and take them over and the landlords can never move them or their families on. That is the nub of the Minister's argument.
  Mr. Bill Walker indicated dissent.
  Mr. Griffiths: I shall give way—The truth of what I have said is acknowledged by the fact that the hon. Gentleman makes no intervention.
  Landlords now are no different from those whom successive Governments, up to this one, have done so much to try to drive out of business.
  It is rather ironic that I should be speaking today, as this is the closing date for landlords to take advantage —under the Government's business expansion scheme—of 60 per cent. tax relief and all the capital gains on that to foster private landlordism. The tragedy is that the clause works hand in hand with the private landlord—for the sake of private profit—to ensure that a minimum of obstacles are placed in the way of his letting a property for

  317
  the maximum and ensuring that people are moved out, or at least do not have absolute security in a variety of circumstances in which they have it now.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman obviously was not listening when I talked about the two-year-old milkman delivering milk to me when I lived in Linlathen. I said that legislation had changed circumstances and that private housing which used to be plentiful had disappeared. There are many empty houses which we want to bring on to the market, and the legislation is designed to do precisely that. It is not intended to be a replacement or an alternative to existing legislation; it is intended to add to it.
  Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman should come with me to my constituency, which might be called a typical Conservative constituency in that it has probably one of the highest densities of private landlordism combined with home ownership. He should see the people, too old and frail to come to my ward interviews or surgeries, whom I visit in Morningside and Marchmont. They are living in the houses—with window frames painted the standard green, like the leather benches in the Chamber—owned by the big private landlords in Edinburgh. They find it difficult to get repairs done by those so-called compassionate landlords whom Conservative Members have praised in the past, are praising now and wish to expand in the future.
  Worries about rent levels have been heaped on tenants by the Government's withdrawal of housing benefit, as the Secretary of State found when he visited Govan yesterday and spoke to a pensioner who told him that he now has to pay £50 of his rent instead of £30. We need not look back to the past; we see terrible problems today. Compassionate hon. Members who represent constituencies such as mine see them daily when they visit their constituents.
  The Minister has woefully failed to address himself to these difficulties. I am speaking now rather than earlier because I thought that my points were being made far better by my hon. Friends, and felt sure that the Minister would take on board what they said. But he brazenly said that he and his party care not a whit for the widow or widower in such terrible circumstances. The charge may be made—we have not heard it yet, perhaps because not many Conservative Members are present to intervene—that we are constructing an exaggerated scenario involving cases that are unlikely to occur, and that the chances of a widow's obtaining a tenancy and then remarrying are slim. If the chances are so slim—one in 100,000, or one in a million—there is surely no problem about accepting the amendment. It cannot be a disincentive.
  Pressure has been put on the Minister by his friends the private property speculators not to change the position because they know that this is not uncommon in the areas that we represent, where private landlordism is fairly prevalent. The fact that it is not uncommon means that the safeguard that we are urging on the Minister is more important than ever. We know that the Minister has sought to cloak his wish to protect and expand private landlordism and private profit in talk of security, when security has been removed. We know that the Government have made no provision not only for spouses who may find themselves homeless but for the children of the newly widowed, who may find themselves out on the street
  318
  because of a rule that can be pointed to by a landlord. The case can go to the sheriff, who will have no discretion or choice in the matter.
  Is there a massive pool of other housing in either the rented sector or for purchase? No. Most people rent privately only because they cannot get on to council waiting lists, which have tragically doubled in Scotland under the present Government, or because they cannot afford the extortionate, record mortgage rates that the Government have imposed in 1980 and this year.
  4.45 pm
  The very people who could be flung out because of this wicked measure are being deprived of the opportunity of applying for council houses because the Government starved them of resources between 1979 and 1983. Any council will tell us that the backlog from those years is so great that, even if spending is greater than it was then, councils are still being starved of resources. They are not able to build houses to house the homeless, and people are unable to enter the housing market, especially in cities such as Edinburgh but no doubt in many other areas as well, because prices have shot up.
  The Minister's failure to comment was an appalling omission. What does he expect people to do—not just, the new widow or widower, but the children who have been thrown out on the streets? Does he not think that the rights of thousands of people should be greater than those of a few hundred private landlords?
  Mr. Ian McCartney: I speak on the basis of solidarity with my Scottish colleagues, as a member of Standing Committee G which dealt for four months with the English and Welsh legislation. The destruction of succession rights has run through both Bills, and we have been trying to understand the reasoning behind this vicious, nasty legislation. In fact, it is all about market forces in the private sector.
  The property will already be in the private sector, and on the tenant's death it will remain in the private sector. Eviction will not add a single house to the market, as the house will already be in the market place, available for rent, and indeed will be tenanted on the basis that it is in the private sector. The Minister's argument does not hold water. There is no incentive.
  Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend is right to point out that not a single house will be added to the private sector, but another person will be added to the growing list of homeless people in Scotland.
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is quite correct, and I hope to prove the truth of what he has said.
  Let me return to the pressures of market forces. The Minister is providing for a gun to be held at the head of the widow or widower. The unscrupulous landlord will say, "I have the power to have you out tomorrow, but I might be prepared to allow you to stay if you agree to a doubling of the rent, or reductions in the amount spent on repairs, or a shorter life span for your tenancy." He may even say, "Would you agree to sublet to another tenant?" That is already happening. In my constituency tenancies are being divided to increase the landlord's share.
  The Government are screwing the poorest in the community. Market forces are not about the equality of tenants in the market place. They provide an opportunity

  319
  for the landlord to take as much as he can in rent and do as little as he can to provide facilities for the family renting his property.
  The Bill also encourages the private sector to remove a property from the private rented sector. Private landlords will be encouraged to get rid of the tenant and sell the property as an asset. It does not necessarily mean that that property will pass to another private landlord or that it will be sold to another tenant. It could be sold for business purposes and the house could be sold as a shop or as a future site for an office block. That is already happening in the housing market in England and Wales.
  If tenants are lucky they will be offered reduced tenancy rights and massive increases in rent. Alternatively, they will face homelessness. If the private landlord gets rid of those tenants it is possible for him to take the house out of the rented sector and sell it as a capital asset. Therefore, homelessness will increase and there will be a reduction in the number of houses available in the private rented sector. Given the reduction in capital investment available to local authorities, they will be unable to deal with the homeless problem as it increases. That is the reality of the Government's proposals.
  The Minister is not ignorant of the facts and he knows precisely what he is doing. He believes in private market forces, not in the quality of the private rented sector or the ability of a tenant to obtain a tenancy agreement that charges an affordable rent. The Bill, which is petty and vindictive, will be transferred to England and Wales. We shall not forget the Minister for this treacherous piece of legislation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Amendment (a) in lieu of the Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 17

  FIXING OF TERMS OF STATUTORY ASSURED TENANCY
  Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 11, line 16, after "below" insert "in the prescribed form".
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 10.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Tenants and landlords have the right under the Bill to apply to the rent assessment committee for a determination of rent or of other conditions of the tenancy. However, without Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 10, only an application from a tenant under a short assured tenancy needs to be in a specific form prescribed by regulations. We believe that it would make for simplicity for tenants and landlords in making their applications, and for the rent assessment committee in processing them, if they are all in a form set out in regulations. That is what the two amendments achieve.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I welcome the fact that my hon. Friends, together with the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), took the opportunity afforded by the previous amendment to have a fairly wide-ranging debate
  320
  on the principles of the Bill. Lords amendment No. 5 is concerned with rents—another fundamental aspect of the Bill.
  In response to my intervention in his earlier speech, the Minister candidly confirmed that Lords amendment No. 4 means simply that the widow of a successor tenant will be exposed to the threat of summary eviction. That is one of the things that the Government are proposing to do to encourage the private sector, private speculation and private landlordism.
  The entire Bill concerns increasing rents and reducing tenants' security in the private sector. I suspect that that is in the vain hope that there will be a rebirth of private landlordism in Scotland. The Labour party does not want that.
  Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 10 deal with the procedures for a tenant to refer the terms and rent of a new statutory assured tenancy to the rent assessment committee. According to the amendment, the application to the committee must be in a prescribed form. The fact that it will be in a prescribed form according to a prescribed procedure and timetable will be another obstacle to tenants who want to secure their rights under the Bill—given the limited rights that will be left to them.
  It would be helpful if the Minister could say something about the interesting concept of an "affordable rent". The Government say that they want market rents so that private landlords can make a profit. On the other hand, the Government say that they will ensure that those rents are affordable and that there will be sufficient back-up to ensure that. Housing associations, Shelter and others have expressed grave concern about that.
  Have the Government had any further thoughts about the concept of affordable rent? How on earth do they propose to ensure that tenants can afford the rents that are likely to be charged, given that a sellers' market already exists in Scotland? There is a gross shortage of housing in Scotland. Any hon. Member or councillor in Scotland who comes face to face with his or her constituents must be aware that an intolerable number of people are living in overcrowded accommodation. An intolerable number are stuck on housing waiting lists or in bad housing.
  Because of the present housing crisis there is a sellers' market in Scotland. Given a free market, landlords will be able to charge high rents. What protection will be given to tenants? I shall return to this matter when discussing Lords amendment No. 17, which would ensure that tenants have the information that they need to assert what is left of their limited rights.
  Given that the Minister was candid enough to come clean and admit that he is quite happy at the prospect of widows being evicted in Scotland, will he now come clean about the future high rents?
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Following what my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said, I should like to quote a specific example from the Secretary of State's constituency. I hope that the Minister will comment on it.
  A council house in the Wester Hailes estate had been bought from a tenant and sold on to a private landlord. One of the local councillors in that area had to deal with the subsequent tenant who was paying the private landlord £90 a week rent and rates for a flat which would normally go at £30 a week. That tenant was paying £28 more than the housing benefit limit just to have a roof over her head.

  321
  That house in Murrayburn Park in Wester Hailes is only one of a number of examples that are now coming to the attention of many councillors and Members of Parliament. Certainly the landlord would consider that £90 was an affordable rent, but the tenant did not. The local councillor, John Innes said:
  "This case is an example of the unscrupulous and unfair actions of private landlords exploiting those in desperate need of housing".
  The Minister may say that the affordability of rents will be regulated in some way, but that is not good enough. The tenant in that case had to move out of the house and had to be housed by the council because she was sending herself into virtual penury as a result of the rent that she was paying to her landlord—what the Government would describe as a "caring landlord".
  Many people will find themselves in a similar position to that lady. A tenant may be charged a rent that is way above the threshold that the Government consider reasonable; under the Bill there is no set limit. Any advice given to tenants to register for a fair rent assessment is discarded because the tenant is understandably frightened of harassment from the landlord.
  The article in the Wester Hailes Sentinel will be the first of many such articles and I take no comfort from that. It is news only because it happened in the Secretary of State's constituency. The laws over which the Secretary of State presides are inadequate. It is because the Secretary of State and his Ministers have, time and time again, rejected the requests that I, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and others have made for tougher regulations on private landlords, that people are now in such difficulty.
  In common with my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) I await the Minister's reply with interest.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I wish to respond to the comments made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) about a specific case. The hon. Gentleman will know, as all hon. Members know, that, sadly, people are exploited in many different ways. I have come across local authorities which have been very poor and bad landlords. I have had to intervene on behalf of people in difficult circumstances brought about by a non-caring, unsympathetic and very dictatorial landlord or local authority. That does not mean that all local authorities are bad. Nor does it mean that all landlords are bad.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South cited a specific case. I trust that he will agree that, on specific cases of that type, the Member of Parliament is often the best person to deal with the problem. I trust that the hon. Gentleman suggested to the lady involved that, whatever her circumstances, she should consult her Member of Parliament.
  5 pm
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The woman did not consult me. I merely picked up a paper that is circulated widely in Edinburgh. The Member of Parliament thought that in general the provisions of the new housing legislation should help to prevent abuse. I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker): if there are abuses in the public or private sectors they should be tackled. However, will the hon. Gentleman agree that this legislation does not adequately tackle such abuses? The
  322
  case to which I have referred and that mentioned by the hon. Member for Tayside, North—which may be a recent case—have occurred after nine years of this Government being in office. What kind of legislative framework have the Government introduced to stop the abuse in the cases that have been referred to?
  Mr. Walker: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because it gives me an opportunity to state that the case that I am reciting—I can think of many others—went to the local authority ombudsman and was dealt with adequately. If someone goes through a Member of Parliament, he can get things done. In my experience, it is wise not to make judgments based on something written in a newspaper. I have learnt from experience that one should accept a specific case as such and then go into the details to find out the real problem. I believe that many things are written simply to draw attention to a paper or to help to sell it. They are written with little intention of solving the problems of the individuals involved.
  Mr. Galloway: The newspaper to which reference has been made could not have increased its sales with the story because it is a free sheet with a wide circulation in Edinburgh.
  Having found evidence of had public sector landlords, the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) could refer the case to the ombudsman. To whom will we refer such cases of gross exploitation in the private sector? There is no ombudsman in the private sector. In all his experience of abuse by local authority landlords, has the hon. Gentleman ever heard of a case in which a local authority charged £90 a week for a flat in Wester Hailes or on an estate like it instead of the £30 a week charged when it was in the public sector?
  Mr. Walker: I am very glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because his intervention clearly relates to the time when he did not attend the Standing Committee while he was in Glasgow because of a little local difficulty. That meant that he missed some of the very important debates and he obviously has not had the opportunity to read thoroughly the reports of the debates.
  With regard to the question of what one is charged for anything, I stress that nothing in life is free; someone pays for it. The distributors of a free sheet may have their reasons for wanting to increase circulation—for example, because more people will advertise. Whoever pays will have reasons for what they do. That is a general observation because I do not know the specific details. As I said to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, if we look carefully at the details we may find that things are not quite as they are presented. That is why we should refer the matter to the hon. Member of Parliament responsible who can deal with the specifics in the way in which we in this House cannot.
  Mr. Eric S. Heifer rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) giving way?
  Mr. Walker: No.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: In that case, I call Mrs. Maria Fyfe.
  Mrs. Fyfe: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) at a suitable moment if he asks me.
  Will the Minister tell us what the Government are planning to do to ensure, in the Government's words, that rents are "below market levels" and at "affordable levels" for those in lower-paid employment? Over recent months the Minister has given repeated assurances that that would be the case. However, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has stated that there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that that happens. What will the Minister do to ensure that the rents will be affordable?
  When the Minister replies to that, will he also reply to an earlier question from my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) about the clause affecting a bereaved spouse who remarries and then dies, leaving a widow or widower? A landlord might tell that person that he or she cannot stay unless they pay a higher rent. The Minister managed to get off the hook by refusing to answer that question. Perhaps he will answer it now as we are talking about rents. What will he do to protect people in that position?
  If a Member of Parliament has taken up a problem on behalf of a constituent with a local authority, he does not have to go to the ombudsman to sort it out. In the vast majority of cases, the local authority will respond as well as it can, although it cannot always give people what they want because there are not enough houses. However, the authority will respond sympathetically and examine the question. If I write to a private sector landlord, he need not even bother to answer my letter because there is nothing in this legislation which requires him to pay any attention to any Member of Parliament or elected representative.
  Mr. Heffer: I do not like to intervene in Scottish affairs, but this is not completely a Scottish affair. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said that he had to deal with bad local authority landlords. We have all had cases where local authorities have not dealt with repairs as quickly as they should have. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) said, we know that if we or the local council intervenes, action will be taken sooner or later.
  I have been a Member of this House longer than the hon. Member for Tayside, North. For my sins, I have been here 24 years. On the basis of my dealings with my constituents, most of whom live in private landlords' houses, I would cheerfully hang, draw and quarter most private landlords. I would do that on the basis of what they do not do when Members of Parliament approach them and ask them to take action over repairs.
  When the Labour party was in government, we had legislation under which we could go to the local authority and sometimes force a landlord to do repairs and charge it to him. That is not possible any longer. The position is not quite the same as it used to be. Landlords can now ignore Members of Parliament or anyone else and they do. There is no ombudsman or anyone else to take the case to.
  From my experience of private landlords, I can state that the quicker we get rid of them, the better it will be for the ordinary people who cannot afford to buy a house of their own. I have a thing about private landlords, as I have had to deal with them for a long time. I hate most of them. There are a few exceptions who have, on odd occasions, actually concerned themselves with the people who live in their homes. However, that is not true of most private
  324
  landlords, who seek to extract the maximum amount of money from their tenants and to give the least in repairs in exchange.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller). If somebody were in a position to purchase his house, I would advise him to do so because that would provide him with much greater security. However, not everyone is in a position to do so.
  No eviction can be summary. A landlord must have a ground for applying to the court for an order for possession. That is important.
  It is for the landlord and tenant to decide what is affordable. The Department is working with the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations on factors to be taken into account and on collecting local information on rent levels. It might assist the House to know that we are conscious of the vital need to provide as much information as possible to tenants and landlords about their rights and responsibilities once the Bill comes into effect. Therefore, we shall be making widely available a booklet explaining the rights of assured tenants and those who remain regulated tenants; all existing private sector tenants will keep all their existing rights.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Minister assure the House that the leaflet advising tenants will be more accurate than the leaflet on the poll tax, which was a deliberate deception, pretending that higher levels of rebates would be given and giving inaccurate figures of the levels at which the community charge will be set?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are a little in advance of our business.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall not anticipate the future debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the booklets will be thorough. They will explain the rights of assured tenants. A separate booklet will explain the rights of all existing private sector tenants. That includes all existing protected and statutory tenants under The Rent (Scotland) Act 1984.
  Dr. John Reid: I am sure that the Minister will have noticed that, in his eagerness to make some rather cheap remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) refused to answer the question that was put to him. Will the Minister answer the question? We know that a tenant in the public sector has recourse to an ombudsman in the case of maladministration, gross overcharging or whatever, but can he tell us in simple terms what a private sector tenant will do in the event of such maladministration or gross overcharging?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: All existing tenants will have exactly the same rights as they have at present. That will be spelt out in great detail in the booklet. Who will be the best person to take a matter up with depends on the circumstances of the case. A matter concerning housing benefit would be best dealt with by the Department of Social Security. The booklets should be ready before the new provisions come into force and will deal with matters in an easily understandable question and answer form.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: How does the Minister expect a landlord and his potential tenant to arrive at an

  325
  agreed rent? Can he imagine a tenant knocking on the landlord's door saying, "Look here, Mr. Landlord. I cannot afford your £90 rent. I can afford only £30 a week. Will you agree to that?" How will such agreements be reached between landlords and tenants? Is not the reality that a person who does not have £90 a week will remain homeless?
  5.15 pm
  Mr. McAllion: In the course of the last debate a question arose about the right of succession of spouses. The only new response was that landlords would have to negotiate with the spouses to ensure that eventualities such as those that we described would not come to pass. As I understand it, Lords amendment No. 5 deals with the notice that would have to be given to fix the terms for the renewal of an assured tenancy. Indeed, if the tenant was unhappy with the terms of the assured tenancy he could refer that notice to a rent assessment committee to determine whether the terms were reasonable under a contractual assured tenancy.
  Could a tenant who was unable to negotiate with a sympathetic landlord a contract which included the spouse's right to succeed to a tenancy, take the matter to the rent assessment committee, saying that it was reasonable for that to be included in the terms of the assured tenancy, or would this legislation preclude such tenants approaching the rent assessment committee?
  This is an historic day, because this is the 10th anniversary of the election to the House of my hon. Friend for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). His was a famous by-election victory. The Conservatives were expected to win but, as always in Scotland, the Labour party won. I would be grateful if the Minister would address himself to the question whether such a tenant could go to a rent assessment committee to ask it to determine whether it would be reasonable to set aside the terms of the agreement.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This is the third time that I have spoken on the amendment, so with the leave of the House I shall say that, if the landlord puts forward proposals that a tenant considers unacceptable, I would strongly advise him to find a different landlord. The premise upon which the legislation is based is that the private rented sector will be revived, making more choice available.
  Dr. Reid: Can the Minister give me one instance from his experience of a hire purchase company telephoning somebody with a hire purchase agreement to ask them whether they agreed with the rate of interest to be charged because the company was anxious to reach that figure by agreement, not by diktat?
  Mr. Galloway: There have been many historic misstatements in the course of the Government's life, from the unemployed being enjoined to get on their bikes to look for work to the one that has just been uttered by the Minister with responsibility for Scottish housing. With a dire shortage of housing and a gross over-supply of people looking for the right kind of housing, people who are vulnerable economically are being told that they should eat cake if there is no bread—if they cannot reach agreement with their landlords, they should look for
  326
  another. If ever any statement suggested that the Minister lives on a completely different planet from most Scottish people looking for housing, it was that.
  Here we are down memory lane again finding landlords with sheepskin coats, big gold rings, chains—and alsatian dogs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) says—spivs, who are all too amenable to pleasant negotiations with the poor people who happen to be in their clutches and have to live in their crumbling tenements, flats and houses. They are all too ready to sit down and negotiate an affordable rent, the speed of repairs or how bright the light on the dark and dingy stairs should be. They are all too willing to meet the tenants or their representatives at any time to drive a fair bargain with them. If, at the end of the day, despite the eminent reasonableness of the spivs in sheepskin coats, no agreement can be reached, the tenant need only pack up his bags, get on his bike and look for another landlord with whom to reach a compatible agreement. That is a fantasy —a nightmare offered by the Government. The pitiful excuses for the legislation that the Minister is offering us are enough to make me want to demand his resignation.
  Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19

  NOTICE OF PROCEEDINGS FOR POSSESSION
  Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 13, line 28, at end insert—
  "(7) A notice under this section shall cease to have effect 6 months after the date on or after which the proceedings for possession to which it relates could have been raised."
  Read a Second time.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a) leave out '6' and insert '2'.
  I take it that we may also discuss amendment (b), in line 4, at end insert
  'and no further notice may be served within a period of six months after the lapse of a notice under this subsection'.
  The Lords amendment means that an eviction notice will lapse six months after the proceedings could have been raised. I suppose that that may be a small blessing. Without it the threat of eviction could hang over tenants more or less permanently. However, it does not take us much further forward, because the landlord can simply issue a new notice. Amendment (a) would further reduce the uncertainty facing a tenant by reducing the lifespan of an eviction notice to two months. More important, amendment (b) would prevent a landlord from issuing another notice within six months of the lapse of the previous one. That would prevent the landlord from playing a cat and mouse game with his tenants and harassing them by repeatedly issuing notices to quit.
  Harassment is already a feature among private landlords in Scotland, and it is likely to intensify as a result of this legislation. At my constituency surgery last Saturday, there was one young mother who was being threatened with violence by her landlord, who wanted to put her out of the house because she could not afford to pay the rent. The only advice that we could offer was that she should contact the police and seek protection. Such harassment is already happening and will become mach easier under this legislation.
  The Minister says, "Tenants can just go and find another landlord." In Scotland, the normal procedure

  327
  would be for a person to seek a tenancy from the local authority, but that is the one thing that the Minister does not want prospective tenants in Scotland to be able to do, because the Government keep running down and eroding the provision of local authority and public sector housing in Scotland, as they are determined to get as much of that housing stock as possible into the private sector. I invite the Minister to consider the possibility of harassment by the repeated issuing of eviction notices, so that a tenant would be constantly living under the threat of eviction. I commend to the Minister in particular amendment (b).
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Government cannot accept the proposed amendments to Lords amendment No. 6, as we believe that there is considerable doubt about whether a sheriff would treat as valid a notice served on a tenant many months before proceedings took place.
  However, to put the matter beyond doubt, the Government agreed to placing a time limit on the lifespan of a notice. That is what we have done, and we have naturally used the same time limit as that which applies to notices served on public sector tenants. As a result, the notice is valid for six months after the earliest date on which possession proceedings could take place. That seems entirely sensible, and I see no reason to restrict the lifespan to two months as proposed by the amendments, thereby treating private sector tenants differently from those in the public sector.
  I do not consider that a restriction on the issue of further notices would be appropriate. It is true that without amendment (b), a landlord could issue a series of notices and so keep a tenant under constant threat of proceedings. But if a landlord is so minded, at least the Lords amendment puts him to the trouble of issuing a notice every six months. If a landlord wishes to pursue the matter, he must go to court and through all the processes, and obviously the facts will be taken fully into acount by the court.
  It must be borne in mind that there are many circumstances in which it would be perfectly reasonable for a landlord to serve another notice shortly after the expiry of an earlier one—for example, if the tenant falls into rent arrears for a second time, or, in general, where a ground for possession applies, then ceases to apply, then comes to apply again.
  I must also point out that, however well intentioned, the amendments might occasionally encourage landlords to evict tenants. That would occur if a landlord used the issuing of a notice as a form of final warning; for example, to make the tenant bring his rent payments up to date or else face eviction—a relatively common practice in the public sector. When the lifespan of such a notice is six months after the earliest date when proceedings can take place, and when the landlord has the ability to issue further notices, he can be fairly relaxed about giving his tenant time to comply. But if the notice's lifespan is only two months and there is a restriction on issuing further notices, the tenant will have less time to comply and the landlord will be more likely to raise proceedings for eviction. I invite the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) not to press the amendments.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I shall attempt to summarise the Minister's remarks: he thinks that there should be a six-month rule for both the public and the private sector, as against our amendment, which would provide one rule of six months for the public sector and one rule of two months for the private sector.
  The growth in rent arrears has been mainly caused by the Government's policies in respect of housing benefits, which have restricted the payments available to tenants who entered agreements with both private and public sector landlords. Those restrictions on housing benefit have caused great hardship over the past seven months —as the Minister, his colleagues and all the rest of us know, and as the people who have been most affected by housing benefit restrictions know to their own cost.
  The reason why we advocate a two-month rule for private landlords as against six months for public landlords is that the latter are geared up for changes in Government legislation. Their local Members of Parliament are advising them that the Government are cutting housing benefit and that that might have a horrendous impact—as it has in Edinburgh. Private landlords do not have any such mechanism. I know that that is true, because private landlords have contacted me asking, "Why is the council suddenly cutting the money available to the private tenant in my dwelling? I cannot hold off eviction proceedings for much longer." I have to explain to those private landlords that it is not the fault of the local authority but is the fault of the Government, and that has been admitted by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House.
  While a council can, one way or another, wait more than six months for rent arrears to be paid by a cheque from the DSS, the private landlord often cannot do so. We want to ensure that any notice that is served must be acted on within a short period. We know that, with eight changes and cuts in housing benefit since 1983, there may be a ninth and a tenth on the way, and even more until we reach the 24 fiddles we have had on the unemployment statitistics. That is what worries us. We worry about the impact that this legislation will have on those people who are threatened with notices of eviction that hang over them for much longer than two months. If the period is limited to two months, attention will be focused more than ever on the Government of the day to ensure that changes in legislation such as that affecting housing benefit will not have the terrible impact that they have had in the past.
  Mr. Doran: I am slightly out of step with my right hon. and hon. Friends because I welcome Lords amendment No. 6, which I see as being reasonable. If we shorten the period, we may encourage landlords to go to court much more quickly, rather than attempt to reach a negotiated settlement.
  However, I am concerned at the Minister's rejection of amendment (b), which attempts to restrict the number of notices served. The Minister's brief comes from the vacuum, as I see it, that exists either in New St. Andrew's house or in Dover house. Certainly it does not appear to relate to the real world.
  One of the most effective methods of harassing a tenant is the service of an eviction notice. From my experience as a solicitor who acted for many tenants who were in difficulties with their landlords, I know of numerous occasions when landlords wishing to avoid court proceedings, knowing that they cost money and create

  329
  difficulty, considered the service of an eviction notice as a first stage in the process of harassment. In most cases, until the tenant receives legal advice, he does not know that there is any difference, and assumes that a notice of eviction means that he must get out. Amendment (b) provides a valuable sanction in attempting to restrict the serving of notices and further to protect tenants.
  One of the few benefits of the Bill—and we welcome it —is the improvement in the definition of and the increased penalties for harassment, contained in clause 35, which proposes a new subsection 2A(a) to section 22 of the 1984 Act. Does the Minister think that a repeated service of notice would constitute harassment? I think that it would, but I should be interested to know whether he thinks that the proposed new subsection would cover that.
  5.30 pm
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The normal reply of lawyers is that it always depends on the circumstances of the case. We have framed the grounds for possession to bring them in line with those for public sector tenants. A ground for possession can apply, cease to apply and then apply again.
  I do not think that Opposition Members have put forward a convincing case for a different approach, and I therefore cannot accept the amendments.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I am persuaded by the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) about the defects of amendment (a). I accept that the six months provision may be marginally better than two months. However, I remain worried about the subject of amendment (b).
  The Minister acknowledged that it would be possible for a malicious landlord repeatedly to issue eviction notices. As my hon. Friends have already said, that is an acknowledged method of harassment of tenants, and the Minister has confirmed that landlords will be allowed to continue to do that. He said that landlords would have to go to the trouble of issuing a notice every six months. That is hardly an undue burden in this day of word processors. The Minister is deluding himself if he does not think that some landlords will set up shop in Scotland and he only too willing to take such action to keep their tenants under pressure. I am disappointed and angry that the Minister is not prepared to acknowledge the value of amendment (b).
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 20

  EXTENDED DISCRETION OF COURT IN POSSESSION CLAIMS
  Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 14, line 3, leave out "rights of occupation under" and insert
  "occupancy rights under section 1 or 18 of".
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 8.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The amendments improve the drafting of the Bill by specifying the relevant
  330
  sections of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 and by using the correct Scottish terminology.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 8 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 14, line 15, after "on" insert
  "the ground specified in section 30(1) of this Act or on".
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  The amendment is designed to remove an anomaly in the Bill. It ensures that a sheriff may not sist, suspend or postpone proceedings or an order for possession when a short assured tenancy is involved. It simply brings the treatment of short assured tenancies in that respect into line with that of the other mandatory grounds for possession in schedule 5.
  Mr. Doran: I am not quite sure what is intended by the amendment. Without it, would the sheriff have the right to suspend the operation of a notice to quit? If so, I want to say something about removing that power from the sheriff.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We have in mind the example of an engineer working abroad, perhaps in the middle east, who lets his house for a year on a short assured tenancy. He could be severely prejudiced if the proceedings were sisted. It might be his only house. Landlords let on a short assured tenancy basis because they wish to be certain of gaining possession at the end of the tenancy when, for example, they might be returning from abroad. They need to be able to reoccupy what might be their only home. Tenants who accept short assured tenancies will be well aware of the period of tenancy and will have no expectation of retaining possession thereafter. A landlord who seeks an order for possession should not have to wait indefinitely for the order to be granted or to take effect.
  Mr. Doran rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken once and must be aware that that is not in order.
  Mr. McAllion: The Minister referred to a landlord who had let his house on a short assured tenancy and wanted repossession without having a fight in the courts. What is to prevent commercial landlords in Scotland from letting their properties on short assured tenancies and using this legislation as a way of evicting tenants so that they can put up rents? What protection is there against abuse of the proposed amendment by commercial landlords?
  Mr. Hood: Does my hon. Friend agree that landlords will be tempted to opt fox short assured tenancies not because they are going abroad for a year or two but to keep within the legislation? They could still ask a tenant for a 25 per cent. increase in rent—as already happens in London—and when that is refused could give four week's notice and then throw out the tenant. The tenancy will continue only for as long as the tenant pays the increases in rent. Is not that our fear about the legislation?
  Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend makes a fair point about a matter of great concern. The Minister cannot simply skate over it. I realise that Conservative Members think the world is full of kindly commercial landlords who

  331
  are in business only to help tenants find housing at reasonable rents. Of course, Conservative Members may well be landlords; they are certainly not tenants. Most of them own substantial properties and have substantial incomes. They do not understand ordinary people living in Scotland.
  The Minister knows that Shelter has produced figures showing that the waiting lists for council and housing association houses in Dundee have risen by 102 per cent. during the past seven years. People in Dundee do not have access to decent housing; there are too many people chasing too few houses. When the private sector does revive, it will be on a basis of short assured tenancies. People will accept them simply as a means of obtaining housing because there is nothing else available. The Minister must think of the problems that will confront those people when they are faced with eviction because they cannot pay a massive rent increase. It is possible that commercial landlords will abuse the social security system and use housing benefit to push up rents beyond what would be regarded as reasonable by ordinary people.
  I draw the Minister's attention to a former children's home in my constituency. When it was under the control of the regional council, conditions were laid down relating to its use and it provided beds for between 30 and 35 children. The home has now passed into the hands of private sector landlords who have turned it into a hostel. Instead of providing 30 to 35 beds for children, it now provides 96 beds for adults. They expect 96 adults to live in a building that used to accommodate 35 children. That is how they exploit the poor—those who have no access to housing—and they are exploiting them to the best of their abilities. The Minister must face that problem and ensure that the House does not pass amendments that create loopholes that commercial landlords can use to exploit tenants on social security benefits.
  Mrs. Fyfe: I do not think that many would dispute the right of a person to re-occupy his home when returning from abroad. Can the Minister give any figures for short assured tenancies that fall into that category? Can he give figures for commercial landlords who will look upon this aspect of the legislation with delight and seize the opportunity to evict with ease? I am sure that that figure will be very much larger than the figure for people returning from abroad.
  I accuse the Minister of misleading the House by choosing that example, which appeared so reasonable and sensible, but not explaining the commercial landlord aspect. He did not cite the example of commercial landlords which is far more relevant to the poor people who will be their victims.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister said that, with this amendment, he is removing an anomaly from the Bill, but he is removing the sheriff's discretion. He is removing short assured tenancies from the sheriff's extended discretion in eviction proceedings. We regard that as another retrograde step to weaken the limited security of tenants with short assured tenancies. Under this provision, even if he may believe that the tenant has a strong case because of special circumstances, the sheriff will have no
  332
  discretion whatever. This is an eviction Bill, and the amendment simply strengthens that aspect of it, and we deplore it.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall answer one or two questions of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). I query his assumption that tenancies will automatically be short assured tenancies when commercial landlords are involved. I query that assumption because the rent for a short assured tenancy is likely to be lower than that for an assured tenancy, because there is not the same security of tenure for the tenant. Therefore, the norm should be a lower rent. In any case, it is important that the booklet explaining tenants' rights should be made readily available, and hard work has been put into that. The tenant on a short assured tenancy may go to the rent assessment committee at any time if he wishes to raise a certain point.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 10 agreed to.

Clause 24

  INCREASES OF RENT UNDER ASSURED TENANCIES
  Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 15, line 33, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
  "(4) Where a notice is served under subsection (1) above but the rent under the tenancy has previously been increased (whether by agreement or by virtue of a notice under subsection (1) above or a determination under section 25 below) the new rent shall take effect not earlier than the first anniversary of the date on which that increase took effect."
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  The amendment makes more explicit the provisions of clause 24(4). Our intention has always been that rent increases under this provision should not take place more often than once a year. In the form in which the provision left this House, the once a year limitation applied only to notices proposing increases. In practice, that will probably have the effect that we intended, but amendment No.11 seeks to put the matter beyond any possibility of doubt.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister is displaying his usual charming innocence, but it does not take us much further forward. The amendment simply substitutes the provision that the new rent will not come into effect earlier than a year after the previous increase for the bar which stated that no further notice of increase could be served within a year of the previous one. An increase in rent may be delayed, but harassment by notice of rent increase can go on with impunity. That is what the Government want, and I fear that that is what will happen.
  Mrs. Fyfe: I live in hope that the Minister will actually answer one of my questions. Just how often can there be a notice of rent increase, although the rent increases may be reduced to one a year? If a landlord may issue notices of rent increase over and again, that is an act of harassment in itself, and the Minister is doing absolutely nothing about it. Surely he knows that people fear notices of rent increase—even people in the public sector regard them as a threat to evict, although they are nothing of the kind. They are merely formal notices of intention to increase rent. If that action is repeated over and again, it will be taken as harassment, and rightly so.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: With the leave of the House, I inform the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) that the amendment makes explicit what it has always been our intention to make certain, that increases under the provision should not take place more often than once a year. All it does is to make certain what is a safeguard for tenants, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will accept that.
  Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has already spoken once on the amendment.
  Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I beg the hon. Lady's pardon. I did not hear what she said.
  Mrs. Fyfe: I specifically asked the Minister how often there could be a notice of intention, and he has failed to answer the question.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady knows that that is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25

  DETERMINATION OF RENT BY RENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
  Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 16, line 19, at end insert—
  "(3A) Where any rates in respect of the house concerned are borne by the landlord or a superior landlord, the rent assessment committee shall make their determination under this section as if the rates were not so borne."
  Read a Second time.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), in line 5, at end insert—
  'and where a landlord has borne such rates as part of a tenancy agreement before 1st April 1989, and where a tenant has informed the Rent Assessment Committee about such terms, the Committee shall ensure that the rent is adjusted to take full account of the abolition of domestic rates'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 15 and 22.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Home Robertson: The amendment is intended to deal with what I fear is the likelihood that some landlords will seek to take advantage of the poll tax to swindle their tenants. I know that several of my hon. Friends, particularly those representing Edinburgh constituencies, have already drawn attention to that potential problem. In several urban areas it is not uncommon for private landlords of perhaps tenement-type property to charge rents that also cover rates paid directly to the local authority.
  If the rating system is to end, for the time being anyway, on 1 April 1989, tenants in that type of relief will become liable for the poll tax. But, as things stand, there is absolutely no guarantee that their landlords will reduce their rent payments to take account of the abolition of domestic rates. It is quite possible for a landlord to seek to have his cake and eat it, and for the tenant to end up paying the tax twice. Having previously paid an element of
  334
  rent as a contribution towards rates, there is nothing to stop the landlord carrying on pocketing the difference, and the tenant will be liable to pay the poll tax. That is a serious threat, and it has been drawn to the attention of the House by hon. Members from constituencies that are likely to be affected.
  I fear that it will be easy enough for tenants to be exploited under the new housing legislation that the Minister is talking about. Frankly, it would add injury to insult if tenants were to find themselves having to pay their local taxation twice—once to the local authority and a second time to the landlord, as a little bonus for the landlord in such circumstances.
  The amendment requires the rent assessment committee to intervene in such cases and to ensure that the rent paid by the tenant to the landlord is reduced to take account of the fact that the landlord no longer has to pay rates to the local authority. It is absolutely imperative that there should be a safeguard of that nature, and I commend the amendment to the House.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have listened with care to what the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has said, but I do not believe that his amendment is necessary. Lords amendment No. 12 is designed precisely to ensure that, whenever a rent assessment committee makes a determination of rent for an assured tenancy, that determination must be net of any payment in respect of rates. That means that the rent assessment committee decides rent and ignores any charge that the landlord may make in respect of rates. That is to be the case when the determination takes place before or after domestic rates are abolished on 1 April next year. In practice, the hon. Gentleman's amendment would add nothing to what Lords amendment No. 12 already provides.
  I should respond to the concern of some Hon. Members about the position of tenants who pay part of their rent in respect of rates when the community charge replaces domestic rates next year.
  Assured tenancies will only have been allowed in Scotland for a short time when domestic rates are abolished. So the vast majority of private sector tenants will still be regulated tenants, subject to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984. Those tenants will, of course, retain their right to have a rent registered by their rent officer. Registered rents are net of rates, so no regulated tenant needs to be unsure about his position. Of course, I strongly recommend private tenants to become registered.
  I would expect assured tenants, in negotiating the terms of their tenancy with their landlord, to ensure that any payment in respect of rates is clearly distinguished from their rent payment and ceases on 1 April 1989. A written lease, for which the Bill provides, should set out the terms of the tenancy clearly and the provisions for a writen agreement are an additional safeguard. In addition, there are provisions to allow tenants with short assured tenancies to refer their rents for a determination by the rent assessment committee in certain circumstances and RACs will determine rents net of rates. In other words, they will determine solely the rent, so tenants will know what their rents will be.
  In general, there is no need for any tenant to pay his landlord anything for rates after April next year. The only difficulty is encouraging tenants to make use of the rights available to them. That problem is not confined to rates

  335
  and can be tackled only by a long-term common effort involving central and local government, and advice agencies.
  If a landlord persists in seeking to charge a tenant a rent which includes a payment for rates, the tenant will have every right to refuse to pay the element in respect of rates. The landlord could not evict a tenant in those circumstances, unless he had valid grounds to do so under schedule 5 to the Bill or schedule 2 to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984.
  Mr. Galloway: Again, the Minister demonstrates a woeful misunderstanding of the realities of life in the private rented sector. A great number of my constituents are living under the yoke of private landlords. Many are young people who pay high rents for dingy rooms in dingy buildings in inner-city Glasgow. The great majority, or certainly a large number, are already paying their landlords an amount which is supposed to be calculated for rates. If I heard the Minister correctly, he said that he would expect the tenant to ensure by 1 April 1989 that he was netting the amount which is supposed to be for rates. What sort of an apology for government is that? The Government are throwing the onus on to the tenants.
  Many tenants are not as legally trained or as adroit as the Minister, many are afraid of their landlords, many are from ethnic communities and are unsure of their ground, and many are young people with little experience of the housing market. Yet the Minister expects them to ensure by 1 April 1989 that they have netted the amount needed in rates. Surely it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that private landlords cannot exploit this situation.
  We are not asking much, even of a Government who are clearly the landlords' friend. People in the Public Gallery who have been listening to the debate will know that by now. It is not asking much of such a Government to ask them to ensure that landlords are not making off with money that is supposed to be for rates when tenants will also have to pay the poll tax from 1 April.
  The Government are again demonstrating a faith in private landlords which would be touching if it were not so repulsive. The Scottish people will look forward to the day when the last private landlord is strangled with the last copy of the Scottish Daily Express, to paraphrase Tom Nairn. The sooner that day comes the better.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) made an impassioned plea, but he probably did not listen to what my hon. Friend the Minister said. My hon. Friend stated clearly that tenants such as the hon. Gentleman described did not have assured tenancies. They will not be caught up in this until they renegotiate their tenancies after the Bill becomes law, if they decide so to do.
  Mr. Galloway indicated dissent.
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. The amendment deals with tenants who will be affected by the legislation after they become assured tenants. The tenants described by the hon. Gentleman do not fall into that category.
  Mr. Hood: Only a few minutes ago we heard from the mouth of the Minister that he strongly recommended tenants to register straight away. The only conclusion to
  336
  draw from that statement is that he knows, and we know, that tenants will be in the hands of sheepskin spivs. Did you hear that?
  Mr. Walker: I imagine that the Chair heard everything that was said. No doubt the question was not intended for you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but for me. Whatever amusing incidents the hon. Gentleman finds in the debate, I find it much too serious for levity. If I sincerely believed what the hon. Member for Hillhead was saying—that all the tenants he described would be caught by the legislation —perhaps I could move towards his position, but that will not happen in the real world. The tenants will come under the old legislation for whatever tenancy they arranged.
  I choose my words carefully, because both the hon. Gentleman and I know that many people in the real world are not operating under the constraints of the legislation tabled by successive Governments. As often as not, they have reached some private arrangement to meet their circumstances and we understand that. Therefore, they will not be caught up in this until they become assured tenants. For those reasons, the amendment does not apply to them.
  Mrs. Fyfe: The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has not attempted to assure us that these wonderful landlords from whom the milk of human kindness flows would never attempt to do anything so dastardly as to pretend that a rent which formerly included a rates element was now a realistic rent or charge too much for the new rent.
  We can all recall earlier days when a former Member of this House, now Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, had to introduce a Bill to prevent private landlords from fraudulently charging too much for gas. At that time, private landlords could get away with jacking up meters to charge too much for gas which was supplied at a given rate by a nationalised industry. We all know what the conduct of private landlords can be like.
  The Minister suggests that the answer for tenants caught in this trap is to appeal. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) eloquently pointed out the difficulties that face many members of the public when attempting to make such an appeal. They may not understand their rights or the language. Instead of leaving it to individual tenants to appeal, why does the Minister not call this what it is? It is fraud and there should be a police charge for it because it is as dishonest as stealing goods from a shop or money from people.
  Mr. McAllion: Like the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) I try to live in the real world and for the most part I succeeded in doing so until I came here. Once one enters the doors of this Chamber one enters an unreal world.
  In the real world it is common practice for rents to include some charge for rates. Indeed, not two miles from here is the private sector flat that I rent in Kennington, for which I am charged rent and rates combined—to the princely sum of £538 a month. If anyone here knows of any cheaper accommodation I should be pleased to hear about it. That flat is rented at a market rate freely negotiated between landlord and tenant. Its price reflects the shortage of such accommodation in London, and it is the sort of rent which Members of Parliament can afford,

  337
  but ordinary working class people in London cannot. They are being squeezed out to the margins, away from central London, by Tory councils and private sector landlords.
  6 pm
  The Minister said that my hon. Friend's amendment was not different from the Lords amendment, but of course it is. The Lords amendment says:
  "The rent assessment committee shall make their determination … as if the rates were not so borne."
  My hon. Friend's amendment says that the tenant can draw the attention of the rent assessment committee to the fact that the rates are included in the rent. That is a big difference. How will the rent assessment committee know the facts unless the tenant has the right to go to the committee and draw its attention to the fact that rent and rates have been combined and that the latter should be discounted in determining the rent?
  The Lords amendment gives the tenant no such right. There is a shortage of accommodation. All the power and influence lies with the landlord, not the tenant, and the tenant must have the absolute right to defend such small rights as he has under the present legislation. He should have the right to go to the rent assessment committee and draw this to its attention, and the Minister should know that.
  The Minister also said that most tenants would not be affected, because the provision takes effect only from 1 April, and most tenants hold regulated tenancies. I understand that an assured tenancy is supposed to be freely negotiated between landlord and tenant at the market rent. How can the market rent be assessed? People look at the rents being charged in the local area. So, in this case, rents in the regulated sector will be looked at, and they may well include a charge for rates. When assessing the rent for an assured tenancy, rents for regulated tenancies may well be taken into consideration, and they include a charge for rates. There is a serious possibility that people with assured tenancies may find themselves being charged for rates that are included in the rent, and rates charged in the area in which they happen to be trying to obtain a tenancy. The Minister should recognise that that is a real possibility.
  If the Minister stands by the Lords amendment, the tenant will have no right to go to the rent assessment committee and draw its attention to these facts. It will be left to the committee to discover them in some mysterious way. Landlords and tenants are in an unequal relationship; many tenants will feel intimidated. The legislation should at least include a statutory right for tenants, enabling them to go to welfare rights officers and others and ask them to intercede for them with the rent assessment committee. The Lords amendment includes no such right, and will include none if it is passed unamended.
  Mr. Doran: My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) raised an important point. I accept a great deal of what the Minister said, which may surprise him, but I have to tell him that some of it does not affect what happens in the real world.
  We are focusing on the effect of the poll tax and what it will mean to people who live in rented accommodation. Most tenants, council and private sector, when asked what their rent is will give a global figure of £20, rather than identifying £15 for rent and £5 for rates.
  Two categories of people will be seriously disadvantaged after 1 April 1989. The first are those who already
  338
  pay rates to the landlord. The Minister is right to say that when rents and rates are paid as a global sum the tenant may have a right to recover after 1 April if there is a registered rent and the rates are separately identified. That, however, does not take account of the problem that this must be brought to the notice of tenants in some way. Most of them know that they pay a global figure and do not realise that they are paying extra for rates. I shall be interested to hear how the Government will attempt to make tenants aware of that.
  The second group of people who will he at a disadvantage are those who live in areas of high pressure on housing, in which there is a shortage of rented accommodation of all kinds. Like most of my hon. Friends, I am fairly sure that there will be an increase in homelessness and in shortages of housing for rent. The private sector is not the panacea for that problem that the Government think it is. I see major problems ahead. Landlords will increasingly try to get around the legislation, although to a lesser extent than they do with the present legislation.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said, there is already a great deal of pressure on rented accommodation here in London. I have never yet been to see a flat for rent in London without being asked to take a company lease so as to get around the English Rent Acts. The same thing will happen in high-pressure areas such as Glasgow, Edinburgh and even possibly Aberdeen, because of housing shortages.
  I have tried to assess the implications for people in my area. For instance, a couple with an average rent will pay about £40 a week—just over £2,000 a year. That will include rates, because that is the sort of rent I would expect them to pay. Unless there is some way of notifying these people that, after 1 April 1989, they will be entitled to a reduction in their rent because of the introduction of the poll tax and the removal of the burden of domestic rates from landlords, that couple in Aberdeen will face the prospect of their housing costs increasing by about £520 a year. We expect a poll tax of about £260 a year in Aberdeen, and these people will face a real increase of 25 per cent. in their housing costs.
  I accept what the Minister says. In an ideal world in which everyone knew his rights and could exercise them, this legislation might be adequate, but we need much more than that. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian addressed that problem; the Government failed to do so.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister sought to play down the likely incidence of exploitation of tenants by the double charging of the equivalent of local authority taxation, saying that only a small number of people would be affected and that if they had registered rents, everything would be allright. We all know that a high proportion of rents in certain parts of Scotland are not registered. We know that many people pay rent and rates together to their private landlords, and it is not impossible that some landlords will try to carry on charging that equivalent charge after the poll tax comes into effect next year. So some tenants could have to go on paying the equivalent of rates to the landlord and, the poll tax to their local authorities.
  Perhaps our amendment is technically flawed; I think that was the point the Minister tried to make. I am convinced, however, that we are on to an important point here. The Government should grasp it and seek ways of

  339
  protecting tenants in these circumstances. They could do that by accepting the amendment which, even if flawed, could still be tidied up in another place.
  This is a genuinely important point of principle. A significant number of tenants could face exploitation as a result of this double charging and as some private landlords try to swindle their tenants. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in voting for the amendment to the Lords amendment.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran), said that people would not know whether they were paying rates as part of their rents. They will not have to know, because any application to the rent assessment committee will mean that the committee will find out what the rent should be, and that is what the tenant will pay.
  Mr. Doran: My point was that people who already have a registered rent and who pay rent and rates together will not be aware of any change in their rights on 1 April 1989 unless some special effort is made to draw it to their attention. This affects the vast majority of Scottish private tenants.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As I explained earlier, registered tenants now have their rents determined net of rates so no regulated tenants need be unsure of his position. The facts should be before him. The hon. Gentleman pressed hard for written leases. We are bringing those in and that will help, because they will be written into the terms of the tenancy.
  We fully appreciate that after 1 April rent payments by tenants should not include a sum formerly paid in respect of rates. We do not want tenants to pay such sums plus community charge payments. Lords amendment No. 12 is designed to ensure that the rent assessment committee takes account of this in relation to applications for a rent determination. That reflects the Government's concern in the matter. For that reason, the amendment of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is unnecessary.
  Mr. William McKelvey: The Minister seems to be missing the Opposition's point. Why should the onus be on the tenant? We are told that landlords will operate fair practices. Why should they not recognise immediately that they are honour bound to reduce rents by the amount that they were charging for rates? If a landlord keeps his rents at the same level and charges an amount for rates that he should not be charging, and if a rent assessment panel decides that that is the case, the landlord should be deemed to have committed a criminal offence. That would put a stop to any shenanigans and malpractices.
  If tenants know the law, surely landlords should also know it and should carry out their duties so that tenants do not have to apply to an assessment panel. I have many years experience of tribunals and rent assessment panels and it was one field in which I was almost entirely unsuccessful. I raised about 400 cases and lost 398. I won on two occasions and the tenants were awarded a reduction in rent of 2p. Our people do not see rent
  340
  assessment panels as fair and unprejudiced, and I urge the Minister to recognise the reasoning behind our amendment.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: By leave of the House, I did not suggest that the onus should be on the tenant. I said that registered tenants have a right to have their rent registered by the rent officer and should exercise that right. I am sure that in the vast majority of cases they do that and will continue to do it. I stressed that if a landlord seeks to charge a rent which includes a payment for rates, the tenant will have every right to refuse to pay that element. The Opposition amendment is unnecessary.
  Question put, That amendment (a) to Lords amendment be made:
  The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 226.

  Division No. 453]

  [6.13 pm

  AYES

  Anderson, Donald

  Fyfe, Maria

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Galbraith, Sam

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  George, Bruce

  Ashton, Joe

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Battle, John

  Gordon, Mildred

  Beckett, Margaret

  Gould, Bryan

  Beggs, Roy

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Beith, A. J.

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Haynes, Frank

  Blair, Tony

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Blunkett, David

  Henderson, Doug

  Boateng, Paul

  Hinchliffe, David

  Boyes, Roland

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Bradley, Keith

  Home Robertson, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hood, Jimmy

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Howells, Geraint

  Buckley, George J.

  Hoyle, Doug

  Caborn, Richard

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Ingram, Adam

  Clay, Bob

  John, Brynmor

  Clelland, David

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Coleman, Donald

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Kilfedder, James

  Corbett, Robin

  Lamond, James

  Cousins, Jim

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cummings, John

  Lewis, Terry

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Litherland, Robert

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Livsey, Richard

  Darling, Alistair

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dewar, Donald

  McAllion, John

  Dixon, Don

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dobson, Frank

  McCartney, Ian

  Doran, Frank

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Douglas, Dick

  McFall, John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McKelvey, William

  Eadie, Alexander

  McLeish, Henry

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  McTaggart, Bob

  Fearn, Ronald

  McWilliam, John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Madden, Max

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Flannery, Martin

  Marek, Dr John

  Flynn, Paul

  Maxton, John

  Foster, Derek

  Meacher, Michael

  Foulkes, George

  Michael, Alun

  341

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stott, Roger

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mullin, Chris

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Murphy, Paul

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Nellist, Dave

  Wall, Pat

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wallace, James

  Patchett, Terry

  Walley, Joan

  Pendry, Tom

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Prescott, John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Radice, Giles

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Redmond, Martin

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Reid, Dr John

  Winnick, David

  Robertson, George

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Rooker, Jeff

  Worthington, Tony

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wray, Jimmy

  Short, Clare

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mr. Allen Adams and

  Soley, Clive

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Cran, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Allason, Rupert

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Amess, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Amos, Alan

  Day, Stephen

  Arbuthnot, James

  Devlin, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dicks, Terry

  Ashby, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Atkinson, David

  Dover, Den

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Durant, Tony

  Baldry, Tony

  Dykes, Hugh

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evennett, David

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Fallon, Michael

  Benyon, W.

  Favell, Tony

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Forth, Eric

  Boswell, Tim

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bottomley, Peter

  Franks, Cecil

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Freeman, Roger

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  French, Douglas

  Bowis, John

  Fry, Peter

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Gardiner, George

  Brazier, Julian

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bright, Graham

  Gill, Christopher

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Gorst, John

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Gow, Ian

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Burt, Alistair

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Butler, Chris

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Butterfill, John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Gregory, Conal

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Grist, Ian

  Carttiss, Michael

  Ground, Patrick

  Cash, William

  Grylls, Michael

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

  Hannam, John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Colvin, Michael

  Harris, David

  Conway, Derek

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Couchman, James

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  342

  Hayward, Robert

  Riddick, Graham

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Heddle, John

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Rost, Peter

  Hill, James

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Hind, Kenneth

  Scott, Nicholas

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Shersby, Michael

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hunter, Andrew

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Irvine, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Jack, Michael

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Janman, Tim

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Steen, Anthony

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Stern, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Stokes, Sir John

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Sumberg, David

  Lang, Ian

  Summerson, Hugo

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  McCrindle, Robert

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thorne, Neil

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thurnham, Peter

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mills, Iain

  Tracey, Richard

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tredinnick, David

  Moate, Roger

  Trippier, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Trotter, Neville

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nelson, Anthony

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Neubert, Michael

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Walden, George

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Waller, Gary

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Ward, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Warren, Kenneth

  Page, Richard

  Watts, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wheeler, John

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Whitney, Ray

  Pawsey, James

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Wilshire, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Price, Sir David

  Wood, Timothy

  Raffan, Keith

  Yeo, Tim

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Redwood, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Renton, Tim

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Mr. David Maclean.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 16, line 19, at end insert—
  "(3B) In any case where—

  (a) a rent assessment committee have before them at the same time the reference of a notice under section 17(2) above relating to a tenancy (in this subsection referred to as "the section 17 reference") and the reference of a notice under section 24(1) above relating to the same tenancy (in this subsection referred to as "the section 24 reference"); and

  (b) the date specified in the notice under section 17(2) above is not later than the first day of the new period specified in the notice under section 24(1) above; and

  343

  (c) the committee propose to hear the two references together,

  the committee shall make a determination in relation to the section 17 reference before making their determination in relation to the section 24 reference and, accordingly, in such a case the reference in subsection (1)(b) above to the terms of the tenancy to which the notice relates shall be construed as a reference to those terms as varied by virtue of the determination made in relation to the section 17 reference."
  Lord James Douglas Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 14.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Amendment No. 13 is necessary to make clear in the Bill how a rent assessment committee is to proceed if it has to make two determinations at more or less the same time concerning the same tenancy. This could arise if a tenant were referring a proposed rent increase to the committee under clause 25, while at the same time either tenant or landlord were referring proposed changes in other terms of the tenancy under clause 17. Obviously, it makes sense for the committee to hear the two references together. In such cases, the committee should resolve the issue of what variation in tenancy terms is appropriate before considering the level of market rent to be determined. Therefore this amendment requires a rent assessment committee in these circumstances to determine the terms of the tenancy first no matter in what order the reference are actually received. The subsequent rent determination should then take account of the revised terms.
  Amendment No. 14 simply corrects an error.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Lords amendment No. 13 highlights the range of options being made available to landlords through this legislation. It provides for the order in which a rent assessment committee should determine a landlord's applications. If he were to decide on the blunderbuss approach to a tenant, it would have to deal first with the conversion of the tenancy into a short assured tenancy, which would involve loss of security and then, if the first option failed, with the increase in the rent of the original assured tenancy. This is not a happy prospect for Scottish tenants who fall into the trap set for them by the Government. I welcome the opportunity to highlight what is going on.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments 14 and 15 agreed to.

New Clause

  PROHIBITION OF PREMIUMS ETC. ON ASSURED TENANCIES
  Lords amendment: No. 16, before clause 27 insert the following new Clause—
  " . Sections 82, 83 and 86 to 90 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 (which make it an offence to require premiums and advance payment of rent in respect of protected tenancies and make related provision) shall apply in relation to assured tenancies as they apply in relation to protected tenancies (including protected tenancies which are regulated tenancies), but with the following modifications—

  (a) section 83(5) shall not apply; and

  (b) section 88(1) shall apply as if for the references to 12th August 1971 there were substituted references to the date of commencement of this section."

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  344
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) spoke with some passion about this on Second Reading and the amendment meets the point that he made.
  Along with succession rights, which we have already discussed, I think that the issue relating to assured tenancies that caused most concern was premiums. The Bill, as introduced, contained no provisions relating to premiums. We felt that the operation of the market would work in due course to prevent the charging of unreasonable premiums. We still hold that view, but we recognise that in Scotland there has in effect been a full prohibition on premiums for tenancies for many years—since 1920.
  We have also taken on board the many representations against premiums we received from hon. Members, from the other place and from organisations that have daily contact with those involved in the private rented sector. Therefore, we tabled this new clause, which simply applies the relevant provisions of part VIII of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 to assured tenancies as well as regulated tenancies. These provisions prohibiting premiums are already well established in Scotland, so there should be no difficulty in ensuring that they are fully understood by those involved.
  I am sure the new clause will be welcomed by the House.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Home Robertson: Although the Minister has confirmed that the prohibition on premiums has been well established in Scotland, that did not prevent the Government from trying to exclude the principle from the Bill. The fact that this is being presented as a concession must therefore highlight the oppressive nature of the legislation.
  This is a sellers' market. There is a shortage of housing to rent in Scotland and, therefore, anyone with a decent house to rent can be certain that, if the house is in a desirable area, there will be many people wanting to rent it. Without such a safeguard, there is nothing to stop a landlord asking for rent in advance or a deposit which would be returnable at the conclusion of the tenancy. Without that provision, there would be the possibility of demanding key money from tenants who were desperate to find housing, given the present shortage.
  The Minister has acknowledged that we have pressed the Government on this matter, both on the Floor of the House on Second Reading and in Committee. Although there is rejoicing in heaven when a sinner repents, the Minister will have to do better before there will be any rejoicing among tenants in Scotland. There was a serious risk that unscrupulous landlords would exploit the opportunity to extort key money from desperate prospective tenants. That practice should be illegal and I welcome the fact that the Minister has at least made this significant concession in respect of assured tenancies. However, I wish to press him a little further because, as I understand it, the prohibition does not apply to short assured tenancies. Perhaps he will confirm that it will still be possible for a landlord wanting to let a property on a short assured tenancy to demand key money.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is my understanding that the ban on premiums applies generally.
  Mr. Home Robertson: That was not clear from my reading of the amendment and I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that point.
  This is a significant step in the right direction. It should not have been necessary to drag the Government kicking and screaming into such a concession, but we welcome it.
  Mr. McAllion: I was grateful to hear the assurance given by the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) that this would also apply to short assured tenancies, but I see nothing in the Lords amendment that states specifically that it will apply to such tenancies. As I have often told the Minister, I have good grounds for not believing anything that Tory Ministers say with regard to Scotland, so the fact that he has said this tonight is not sufficient assurance. I would like him to tell me where in the Bill it is stated that there will be a prohibition on key money, not only for assured tenancies, but for short assured tenancies. It must be stated in the statute, if the Minister is going to make it stick in the Scottish courts. The fact that he might refer to it during a debate does not represent sufficient grounds upon which a tenant could go to a court and obtain a successful decision. The Minister has yet to address that central problem.
  In the housing market in Scotland, where there is a shortage of housing and a sellers' market, there is every incentive for unscrupulous landlords to avoid the assured tenancies and to go for the short assured tenancies. We want to see in the Bill a prohibition on premiums or key money for short assured tenancies.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. He may not he aware that a short assured tenancy is a form of assured tenancy. That is the answer to his question and he can be reassured on that point.
  Mr. McAllion: It may well be that a short assured tenancy is a form of assured tenancy, but the phrase "short assured tenancy" does not appear in the amendment. Various words are defined at the back of the Bill. The Minister is saying that it is defined in the Bill that assured tenancies include short assured tenancies, but there is nothing to that effect among the definitions at the back of the Bill.
  Mrs. Fyfe: Before I comment on that matter, may I draw the attention of the House to the fact that 226 hon. Members voted against a previous amendment. That means that more than 220 people who walked through that Lobby voted to throw bereaved people out into the streets, without having heard a word of the debate.
  The title in respect of amendment No. 16 on page 3 of the Lords Amendment Paper reads:
  "Prohibitions of premiums etc. on assured tenancies".
  If that means all tenancies, would it not be clearer to say so? Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), I am not at all certan whether what the Minister has just said at the Dispatch Box is the case and whether he intends the provision to apply to all tenancies.
  Mr. Doran: I want to pursue that point because the Minister appears to be saying that, wherever there is a reference to assured tenancies in the Bill, that includes short assured tenancies and that that should apply to all tenants' rights. May we assume, therefore, that the short assured tenant has the same rights as the assured tenant, with the exceptions made in the Bill? I should be happy if the Minister could give me that assurance.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer is yes.
  Question put and agreed to.

New Clause

  DUTY OF LANDLORD UNDER ASSURED TENANCY TO PROVIDE WRITTEN TENANCY DOCUMENT AND WEEKLY RENT BOOK
  Lords amendment: No 17, after clause 28 insert the following new clause:
  ".—(1) It shall be the duty of the landlord under an assured tenancy (of whatever duration)—

  (a) to draw up a document stating (whether expressly or by reference) the terms of the tenancy;

  (b) to ensure that it is so drawn up and executed that it is probative or holograph of the parties; and

  (c) to give a copy of it to the tenant.

  (2) On summary application by a tenant under an assured tenancy, the sheriff shall by order—

  (a) where it appears to him that the landlord has failed to draw up a document which fairly reflects the existing terms of the tenancy, draw up such a document or, as the case may be, adjust accordingly the terms of such document as there is; and

  (b) in any case, declare that the document (as originally drawn up or, where he has drawn it up or adjusted it, as so drawn up or adjusted) fairly reflects the terms of the assured tenancy;

  and, where the sheriff has made such a declaration in relation to a document which he has drawn up or adjusted, it shall be deemed to have been duly executed by the parties as so drawn up or adjusted.
  (3) A tenant shall not be required to make payment in respect of anything done under subsection (1) above.
  (4) Where, under an assured tenancy, rent is payable weekly, it shall be the duty of the landlord to provide a rent book.
  (5) A rent book shall contain such notices which shall he in such form and shall relate to such matters as may be prescribed and otherwise shall comply with such requirements as may be prescribed.
  (6) If, at any time, the landlord fails to comply with any requirement imposed by or under subsection (4) or (5) above he and any person who on his behalf demands or receives rent in respect of the tenancy shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
  (7) Where an offence under subsection (6) above committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or a person purporting to act in any such capacity, he, as well as the body corporate, is guilty of an offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."
  Read a Second time.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), in subsection (1)(c) at end insert
  'together with a copy of a document summarising tenants rights and duties under current legislation, including procedures for appeal against eviction or variations in terms or rent, which shall he made available by the Secretary of State'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, we may also consider amendment (b), leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert 'subsections (1) or (2)'.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Again, the fact that the provision for a written lease and rent book has had to be extracted from the Government as a concession must highlight the fundamentally oppressive nature of the Bill. Obviously, we welcome those concessions which we demanded in

  347
  Committee and it is an important step in the right direction, but the provision should have been in the Bill in the first place.
  The Bill lays out a minefield of dangers for tenants, which will not be easy to understand. I cite, for example, the procedures for referring rent increases to the rent assessment committee, the procedures for appeal to the sheriff against eviction and other complications that arise from the Bill. We shall have a mass of different types of tenancy in addition to the protected tenancies which will continue to apply in the public sector. There will be assured tenancies, statutory assured tenancies, short assured tenancies and other variations and permutations on those themes.
  I genuinely fear that some tenants will be saddled with impossible rents or leases. They could even face eviction because they cannot understand or cope with the procedures set out in the Bill. That could be a particular problem for former secure tenants who have been accustomed to the security that applies in the public sector. The Government have made it clear that they intend as many secure tenants as possible from the public sector will be transferred into assured tenancies in the private sector in the coming months and years before we have an opportunity to repeal the legislation.
  That will create many difficulties for those tenants. They will need advice, back-up and all the assistance that it is possible to give them. It is questionable whether the citizens advice bureau, organisations such as Shelter, local authorities and solicitors will be able to cope with the work load of advising tenants faced with repeated applications by landlords for increases in rent and repeated efforts by landlords to evict tenants or harass them under the provisions of the Bill. However, as the Government are responsible for this phenomenally complicated and oppressive system which they are trying to impose in Scotland, they should accept the duty to provide a comprehensive guide to the basic rights and duties of tenants, which, under this amendment, could be annexed to the lease. That would be genuinely helpful to tenants.
  The Minister said that the Government are intending to produce a booklet. The fact that it is a booklet rather than a leaflet emphasises the point that we are wading into complicated legislation from the point of view of tenants in Scotland. It would be much more sensible and satisfactory if there were to be a clear summary of the rights and duties of tenants which could be annexed to every lease produced under the legislation so that a tenant would have in his possession a clear guide to his rights and duties to which he could refer. He would then know when he required further advice and whether he was within his rights when a landlord was abusing his rights. There is a need for this sort of information, and I commend the amendment to the House.
  Mrs. Fyfe: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who has called for the production of a summary of tenants' duties and rights. I was a member of Glasgow district council, which spent a long time in genuine negotiation with representatives of various tenant associations and Glasgow council tenants to try to produce such a statement. The end result was a
  348
  document which ran to several pages. That was only right, because there was so much detail on which tenants and council representatives had to be clear.
  When it comes to tenants' rights, there has to be a list of exactly what types of repair the council will undertake and a similar list of the repairs that tenants are required to undertake. The list included fairly simple items. For example, when the rope on the pulley broke in the kitchen, the tenant was expected to replace it. If there were wiring problems or a ceiling fell down, the repair work was the council's responsibility. By and large, serious or major works were the responsibility of the council. Trivial or everyday matters were the responsibility of the tenant.
  Council tenants have various duties, one of which is to pay the rent on time, while another is to wash the close regularly. Duties have to be described in detail because some people might genuinely not know exactly what is expected of them. That might well be the position of a young person who has never been a tenant before. Many councils are now encouraging and helping young people, who may be in their teens, in an understanding of their tenancies. Rights and duties must be spelt out in great detail so that everyone knows exactly where he stands.
  The tenants of Glasgow district council welcomed the spelling out of their rights and duties. Those who represented the tenants' associations thought that the document produced by the council was the best that they had seen. That feeling was based on their experience of tenancy agreements throughout Scotland. If the Government were so minded, the Glasgow district council approach could be taken as an example of how to proceed. Unfortunately, they have not said anything so far about any intention to follow the practice of that council.
  I urge the acceptance of the amendment because I cannot see how it could possibly have a harmful effect on any tenant or landlord. Each would know exactly where he stood if rights and duties were set out in the detail which I have described. Without that detail, landlords can get away with far too much. Surely the Minister does not wish landlords to escape their responsibilities.
  When I was a tenant of a private landlord I had great difficulty in persuading the landlord that he should make my front door secure. It took two months to ensure that I had a door which would protect me from burglars. That is an example of the sort of problems that are faced by ordinary everyday parents, who may well be young persons. I was confronted with the problem while living in my first home, and it is typical of the difficulties that many tenants have to face. Rights and duties must be spelt out clearly so that everyone knows precisely where he is. I hope that the Minister will take the point on board.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Members for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), and earlier, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran), have advanced a strong argument for ensuring that tenants are aware of their rights and responsibilities. I agree wholeheartedly with that view. The new assured tenancy system depends on both landlords and tenants being aware of their respective rights and responsibilities. It is because of our concern to ensure that tenants have the necessary information that we have provided the right, as set out in Lords amendment No. 17, for every tenant to have a written statement of the

  349
  terms of his tenancy. It is in the interests of both tenant and landlord that both of them are clear about the terms on which the let is taking place.
  Many landlords already provide a written lease, but others, for whatever reason, do not. We have been persuaded that it is desirable to provide the safeguard that is represented by the amendment. Under the proposed new clause a landlord has a duty to give his tenant a written document that sets out the terms of the tenancy. The document must be drawn up at no cost to the tenant. The provision has been framed with the intention of giving private sector assured tenants a similar right to that which public sector tenants already have.
  6.45 pm
  We are taking other steps to ensure that tenants are aware of their rights. Whenever a landlord under an assured tenancy seeks repossession of his house, or proposes a change in the rent or other terms of the tenancy, he must serve the appropriate notice on his tenant. The notices will all be prescribed by regulations. They will include information for the tenant about his rights— for example, his right in some circumstances to refer the proposal to the rent assessment committee.
  We believe that it is much more helpful for a tenant to obtain such information when he needs it rather than at the beginning of his tenancy when he might regard it as unimportant. We shall also be issuing a booklet that will give general information about assured tenancies for both landlords and tenants. It will be circulated widely and it will be an accessible source of information for all those involved. I hope to have the booklet published before the end of the year. I hope also that hon. Members will agree that we are taking seriously the need to ensure that tenants are aware of their rights. We shall continue to give the matter high priority.
  Lords amendment No. 17 would have implications far beyond tenants' rights. It would give tenants the right to raise court proceedings at no cost. That proposal, whatever is merits in general terms, should not be dealt with at the very end of our consideration of a Bill. With Lords amendment No. 17 we have tried to give private sector tenants broadly the same rights on written leases as those that are enjoyed in the public sector. To go down the road that is proposed would be, in our view, to go too far. I hope that the amendments will not be pressed to a Division.
  Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friends and I would not quarrel with a number of the Minister's remarks. It is necessary for tenants to have the information that they require so that they can protect their rights under this extremely complex Bill. That makes it even more strange that the Government Benches are almost empty. I have no doubt that Conservative Members will support the Government whenever a Division takes place, but it is clear that they have no understanding of the Bill's contents.
  I agree with the Minister that there should be a duty upon the landlord to produce a written document which sets out the terms of the tenancy. For three hours we have been debating complex issues, such as a tenant's right to go to a rent assessment committee and require it to come to a judgment on whether the rent offered to him by the landlord includes some charge for rates following the decision to abolish domestic rates and impose a poll tax.
  350
  The tenant has to know where he stands. It is unlikely that a written lease would make information of that sort available to the tenant.
  Under the Bill, tenants will be subject to eight mandatory grounds for eviction and nine non-mandatory grounds. These provisions are set out in tight print on four pages of the Bill. That information will not be included in the written lease that is made available by the landlord. The tenant will not necessarily be aware of his rights.
  The same applies to the clause that sets out the prohibition of premiums or key money. That will not be set out in the written lease that the landlord makes available to the tenant. How is the tenant to know of his rights? In effect, the Minister says, "That is too bad. He will have to wait until the end of the year." The provisions in the Bill will take effect on 1 April 1989, and the booklet to which the Minister has referred will be available, so he says, by the end of the year. I hope that he means this year and not the end of next year. I hope that it will be available to tenants when the Bill takes effect.
  What information will be set out in the booklet? The Minister spoke about "general information". What information will that be? Will every right that a tenant has be set out in the booklet? Will it be a comprehensive guide of the sort that is suggested in the amendment? Will the booklet be made available to every tenant in the private sector?
  I have been fighting against the imposition of the poll tax in Scotland, but at least the Government sent an explanatory booklet to everyone who was involved. It never could be said to set out the truth, but at least it was issued. Will every tenant be sent a booklet setting out his rights and responsibilities? Will he be warned in advance of the different elements of the Bill that will affect him? It is necessary that he should be so warned.
  If a booklet explains to tenants their rights in relation to assured tenancies, will it compare the rights with those of secure tenants in the public sector? One of the main motivations for the Bill is to encourage people to move out of the public sector and into the private sector—on the basis of assured tenancies. How are people to judge whether that is good for them if they are not given a comprehensive list of information? Will the booklet contain only information about the rights of assured tenants or will it compare them with existing rights in the public sector or in regulated tenancies in the non-assured tenancy sector?
  The Minister must address those problems because the Government have a responsibility. If they bring forward a major piece of housing legislation and impose it against the democratic mandate in Scotland, it is up to them to give tenants in Scotland a comprehensive guide about how their rights will be affected under this new and complex legislation. Tory Back Benchers may not give two hoots about the Bill and they may vote for it in ignorance and with contempt for what the Scottish people want. However, they should at least have the decency to inform the Scottish people about how the rights of tenants will change in the revamped private sector, but the Minister will not concede that. The Lords amendment may give a written lease, but it will not give comprehensive information about assured tenancies or about how they compare with secure tenancies in the public sector. The Minister has a responsibility to address that problem. I am not convinced that a booklet that contains general information will do that.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) believes that Tory Back Benchers do not care about the Lords amendment. The evidence is obvious—there are no Tory Back Benchers here, or at least no Scottish ones. I see only an English stray, the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn). He is no doubt welcome.
  I do not understand, from hearing what the Minister has said, why he does not support amendment (a). Everything that he has said should be leading him to support it. He has said that he is keen that tenants should be informed about their rights, so he should accept amendment (a), which provides him with an ideal opportunity. It is important that there should be a document to summarise tenants' rights and duties under current legislation, including procedures for appeal against eviction or variations in terms of rent. It is right and proper that that should be made available by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  The Lords amendment, which the Minister supports, creates a duty on the landlord to provide a written tenancy document and a weekly rent book. Those are sensible and necessary provisions for tenants and are to be welcomed. Amendment (a) seeks to take that protection one step forward. I cannot agree with the Minister when he says that it goes too far. It is a simple, straightforward, sensible measure, which I hope that he will adopt. On several occasions, he has said that he is interested in informing tenants about their rights. Here is a practical opportunity for him to do so.
  If information is to be supplied by a landlord, amendment (a) is surely a sensible and reasonable provision, which adds to the ability of a tenant to know his rights. Amendment (a) would assist tenants and give protection to individuals by ensuring that they are alerted to their legal rights. I support amendment (a) and ask the Minister to think again. It is not a step that goes too far and it should be sensibly accepted as part of the protection for tenants.
  Dr. Reid: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) for acknowledging the effective opposition by Labour Members in Committee. It is a testimony to his political integrity that he has done so, whereas many other hon. Members might not have been genuine and generous enough to acknowledge the fight put up by my hon. Friends.
  I ask the Minister a simple question in two words—why not? He has taken the opportunity tonight to tell us about what the Government will do. He has not given one good reason why a reasonable amendment, which seeks to inform tenants of their rights under the Bill, should not be accepted.
  This is a complex Bill. The work that has been put in and the length of the Committee and of the Bill itself are testimony to that complexity. Anyone knows, when he is renting, or, indeed, buying a house, how complex an operation that is. The Minister must know, as presumably he buys bigger houses than we do and has more complex details to work out. Thus, an already complex situation will be made far more so by the Bill.
  The Minister must tell us why it is such a bad idea or an unreasonable demand that, in the midst of those technicalities that are being inflicted upon would-be tenants, we should ask that they be given a general guide, particularly when all the evidence of the Government's
  352
  Acts shows how, when complex issues are not explained in a comprehensive and straightforward way, the people who lose are the consumers.
  One has only to look at the lack of take-up of benefits. Despite all the good intentions of hon. Members on both sides of the House, because of the complexity of the benefits system—most benefits do not involve lawyers, tribunals or the legal system—most of those benefits are not taken up. That does not show an unwillingness on the part of the would-be beneficiaries to take up the benefits, but it shows complete ignorance, not through any fault of their own. They cannot gain access to information or to details about their rights and entitlements.
  In certain spheres, the Government are intent on making sure that people know their rights. When it comes to trade unions, we are constantly told in the House that trade union members must have knowledge, must participate and be involved and; above all, must have their rights clearly outlined to them. Similarly, for consumers, there is now legislation to ensure that their rights are known to them. When it suits the Government, they are willing to undertake vast exercises of public information or, as has been said, public disinformation.
  There was an example of that on the poll tax and also when this legislation was proposed, in regard to tenants of the Scottish Special Housing Association. No excuses or reasons were given by the Government for why they could not contact every member of the SSHA. The stamp machines were going 19 to the dozen and the letters were flying out of the Scottish Office at St. Andrew's house. Every single tenant of the SSHA was contacted. Incidentally, there was no ballot form in the envelope. However, when it suited the Government and when they wanted to put out their propaganda supporting their case for the Scottish Homes legislation, they managed to write individually to every one of those tenants.
  When it comes to the Government's pet subjects, such as undermining the trade unions and propagating their views on Scottish Homes and the poll tax, why is it that there are no lengths that are considered too inordinate for the provision of information? But when we ask for a straightforward, simple guide to tenants' rights to be supplied to every one of the tenants, the Government do not give us a single reason why that should not be done.
  I look forward to the Minister's answer. He should not tell us what he has done. Let us assume that we look upon what he has done as a sign of his benificence and benevolence. But we ask him why he cannot do what is asked in what must be judged by any objective observer to be an eminently reasonable amendment, which means that the people who will be most affected by the Bill will be given an idea of their rights under the legislation.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: When we started the Bill's long progress towards the Floor of the House on 19 January by embarking on the Committee stage, the Government had not even conceded the right of tenants to have anything in writing from their landlords. That was to be left to the market, to be negotiated freely between landlord and tenant. We have moved on a bit since then. If the booklet that the Minister has promised will be published had been published then, it would have been one of the shortest ever published by the Government. It would have contained the phrase, "All terms and conditions of rent are to be negotiated between the landlord and the tenant. Yours sincerely." We have moved on to what may well be an

  353
  alarming position for tenants. They will have the right to a written lease, which we wholeheartedly support, but not the right to an explanation of that lease.
  7 pm
  I am not a lawyer—I know that the Minister is—but I have no doubt that it would suit certain landlords to visit certain solicitors and draw up leases that were hard to understand and would enable them to say to their tenants, "This is all legal jargon, but basically it means X, Y and Z. Sign here." We have all been subjected to pressure to sign at the foot of a page that looks too complicated to read. The Lords amendment asks—and we ask—for a summary explanation of tenants' rights and duties.
  While it is fundamentally important that tenants' rights are explained to them, it is also vital that their duties are explained so that they cannot at any stage be hoodwinked by their landlords. That is part of our basic objection to the way in which the Government have handled the matter. They have sided with the landlord time and again. They have moved from their position of 19 January not because they disagree suddenly with the landlords, or because they think that tenants deserve better protection and more information now than they did then; their sole reason is that they fear public opinion.
  Since January we have gone through what was, for the Government, a humiliating round of local elections. The Conservatives could not take back cities such as Edinburgh: they could barely gain one or two seats there, and they were wiped out in such places as Glasgow. If he did any canvassing in Edinburgh, West, the Minister will know that that was because many tenants in both the private and the public sector fear that the Government wish to hand over them and their tenancies and to prejudice their children's rights to tenancies, and they have reacted against that. Public opinion has forced the Government to make this moderate concession.
  Cannot the Minister now agree that there are no real barriers to issuing a summary statement which would help tenants to know their rights and obligations and the obligations of their landlords so that when tenant and landlord sit down with the legal document that represents the lease there is a legally binding explanation that helps to describe what might be too complicated for laymen such as myself to understand?
  Mr. Doran: I apologise for the fact that other business prevented me from being present for earlier speeches. I heard the opening of the debate, however.
  Once again my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has raised an important point. It returns us to the issue that has been brought up throughout the debate, that of the real world. On paper, I am sure that many of us are pleased to see the Government cave in to the forceful arguments that we presented in Committee, when we insisted at every opportunity that tenants' basic rights should be protected. A fundamental part of those rights was the right to a written lease, which was to be removed. I am delighted that the Government now accept that principle. While we might have been happier with wording other than the "civil servantese" with which we have been dished up, progress is clearly being made.
  My hon. Friend's point is valid. The lease is not a declaration of the tenant's rights and interests; it is simply an expression of the contract between the two parties. It
  354
  makes no reference to the law that backs it up. We have seen fit to regulate this matter; here we still have a bit of Government intervention. Let me direct the Minister's attention to precedents of which he will be well aware. For example, under the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984, with the service of a notice to quit there is a statutory form setting out the tenant's rights and obligations as well as the landlord's obligations. That was done for good reasons. Parliament considered it important that when such a serious step was being taken the tenant should be fully advised of his or her rights.
  We feel that the circumstances that we are now discussing are on all fours with that. The Bill will mean a considerable shift away from the rights of the tenant—which were the basis of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 and all the Acts that preceded it, right back to the Rent Act 1965—to the rights of the landlord. There is an imbalance. But, although we have hammered the point home as hard as we could, we have been able to shake the Governrnent only a little. Opposition Members bitterly regret that they would not make the major shift that we wanted, because we believe that housing in Scotland will be profoundly affected.
  The amendment seeks to achieve important but simple things. I find it rather difficult to understand why the Government have decided to produce a booklet, although I am delighted to hear that from the Minister today. Any information passed on to consumers—which tenants are —is welcome, as long as it is accurate and presented in an understandable form. I mentioned "civil servantese". It is important to write in ordinary plain English. There was a time when Governments attempted to do that, but they seem to be moving away from it again. We shall be discussing the documents on the community charge later this evening.
  If the Minister has accepted the principle that information should be passed on to the tenant, why does he not accept the principle that that information should be targeted? The best way to target it is to oblige the landlord to include a schedule, just as he is entitled to present a notice to quit in a statutory form. Why cannot the tenant have a statutory declaration of his rights? It would be fairly simple to produce it by order, as is done in other contexts.
  We are agreed on the principle that the information should be passed on to the tenant. We merely want to ensure that it reaches its source, and the simplest way in which to do that is to make it part of the lease. If he accepts the principle, why cannot the Minister accept this simple amendment?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Government are fully aware that the smooth working of the assured tenancy system requires that tenants and landlords are fully aware of their rights and responsibilities. The provisions for a written lease are extremely important and should not be underestimated. We believe that the landlord must provide the tenant with a written document setting out the tenancy terms in the prescribed form, and notices for use by tenants and landlords will contain information on the rights of both.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) said that that was not enough, and I agree with him: it is not enough in itself. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) asked whether the booklet would be comprehensive. It certainly will be. It will set out all the

  355
  major rights and all the implications. It will also be freely available to every private sector tenant, although it will be impossible to ensure that every tenant picks one up.
  The situation is not the same with SSHA tenants. There are now 80,000 such tenants, but there are no assured tenants—of course, not everyone wants to become an assured tenant. The booklet, however, will be widely and freely available.
  Dr. Reid: The situation may not be exactly the same as that which applies to SSHA tenants, but I gave that example to illustrate the point. The Minister says that it will be possible to make sure that every tenant picks up a booklet, and precisely the same situation applies to benefits.
  Is it the Minister's intention to ensure that the Bill operates on behalf of the consumer, about whom the Government constantly speak and to whom they direct their attention and propaganda? Does the Minister accept that, as in the case of benefits, consumers may not pick up a booklet because of a lack of knowledge and because they may be unaware of their rights? Therefore, that consumer will not gain the benefits of the Bill.
  If the Minister agrees with that, why does he not follow what our amendment suggests? Procedures for appeals against conviction or variations in terms should be included with a summary of tenants' rights and duties under current legislation. The Minister should ensure that there is no question of a tenant not picking up a booklet by making it available to him at the time he enters into the contract.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I see the logic of the hon. Gentleman's question, but we believe that the combination of a written lease and a booklet, which will be widely and freely available, should provide the solution. I accept, however, that the booklet must be genuinely widely available.
  Mr. McAllion rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am sorry, but I shall not give way, because of time.
  Ironically, the hon. Member for Dundee, East cited the example of the information sent out regarding the community charge. It almost appeared that the hon. Gentleman was citing it as a good example of such communications. We shall bear in mind what he said.
  Mr. McAllion rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have dealt with that point and I shall not give way.
  The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) asked about the second Opposition amendment, which would give the right to raise court proceedings at no cost. We do not believe that the Opposition have considered the wide-ranging implications of that for the Scottish legal system. To accept it would be foolhardy.
  Mr. Doran rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not certain whether the Minister is intending to give way or not.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton indicated dissent.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Home Robertson.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I do not think that the Minister knows where he is either.
  I acknowledge the generous words of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) who rightly acknowledged that we have done an effective job in opposing this Bill by putting forward constructive amendments. I sincerely hope that that spirit of good will will spill on to the streets of Govan before too long.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: I believe that this is a sensible amendment and I am happy to support it in the same way as the colleagues of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) supported my amendments during earlier proceedings on this Bill. It is a sensible amendment, which protects Scottish tenants and therefore it is well worth supporting, irrespective of party.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman must forgive me, but I was not aware that he had taken a great deal of interest in this Bill up until now, although, fair enough, I recall that he tabled one amendment on Report. I will leave it at that.
  The Minister has acknowledged the need for tenants to have information. He rather rashly said that, under Lords amendment No. 17, the lease would have to be provided in a prescribed form. I note that the Lords amendment refers to a prescribed form for rent books, but I see no reference to a prescribed format for leases. Therefore, I fear that leases could be curt documents setting out the rent to be paid and the duties of the tenant without giving any clear advice about the tenant's rights.
  The Minister has made much of the booklet that the Government intend to publish. I echo my hon. Friends' welcome of the fact that that information will be published. However, I share the anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) about whether the booklet will be another propaganda leaflet on behalf of the Conservative Government.
  Mr. McAllion: Does my hon. Friend agree that if it was intended to be a propaganda leaflet issued on behalf of the Government, it would be given to every private sector tenant and they would not have to go to collect it? After all, that is the case with the poll tax booklet, which is being published by the Government.
  Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend is right, and there are precedents to confirm his fears.
  Under the present Government, the track record of the Scottish information office is not a happy one. It has allowed itself to be used as a mouthpiece by the Conservative party and it has not disseminated information to citizens or, as in this case, to tenants.
  I am inclined to stick to my guns on our amendment. Let us consider the type of problem that may occur. A tenant in an assured tenancy may receive a notice of an increase in rent or a notice of eviction. Whom does he go to to find out his rights? How does he know how to go about appealing against an increase in rent or a variation in terms? How does he know what the correct format should be for appealing against an eviction order? How will he know the timetable for such an appeal? These are complicated affairs and unless there is clear advice, readily available, to tenants there is a genuine fear that they will be harassed or exploited by their landlords.
  7.15 pm
  Dr. Reid: I urge my hon. Friend to stick to his guns. The Government have run on the platform of tenants' rights in Scotland. They forced through the House—against the best interests of Scottish tenants—the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980. Therefore, it would be a supreme irony if Conservative Members voted on the basis that they are all for tenants' rights, but they do not want those tenants to know about them.
  Mr. Home Robertson: That is exactly what the Minister is saying by resisting my amendment. It is a simple amendment which would require the Secretary of State to compile an up-to-date summary of tenants' rights, which could be annexed to every lease that is agreed between a landlord and tenant under the new assured tenancy system. That is not a particularly onerous burden for the Scottish Office. I have no doubt that if the Scottish Office wanted to disseminate propaganda it would do so cheerfully.
  A summary of tenants' rights would be the mechanism whereby tenants could obtain urgently needed advice. The tenant may be lucky enough to have to hand a copy of the booklet. That might tell him how he should go about appealing against a rent increase or an eviction order. Surely it would be infinitely more satisfactory if that urgently needed information were annexed to the lease. That is what we are demanding and I invite my hon. Friends to join me in supporting the amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:
  The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 210.

  Division No. 455]

  [7.30 pm

  AYES

  Anderson, Donald

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Clay, Bob

  Ashton, Joe

  Clelland, David

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Battle, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Beckett, Margaret

  Coleman, Donald

  Beggs, Roy

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Corbett, Robin

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cousins, Jim

  Blunkett, David

  Cummings, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Boyes, Roland

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Bradley, Keith

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Dewar, Donald

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Dixon, Don

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Dobson, Frank

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Doran, Frank

  Buchan, Norman

  Douglas, Dick

  Buckley, George J.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Caborn, Richard

  Eadie, Alexander

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  361

  Fearn, Ronald

  Madden, Max

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Marek, Dr John

  Flannery, Martin

  Martlew, Eric

  Flynn, Paul

  Maxton, John

  Foster, Derek

  Meacher, Michael

  Fyfe, Maria

  Michael, Alun

  Galbraith, Sam

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  George, Bruce

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Gordon, Mildred

  Morley, Elliott

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mullin, Chris

  Haynes, Frank

  Murphy, Paul

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Nellist, Dave

  Henderson, Doug

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hinchliffe, David

  Patchett, Terry

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Pendry, Tom

  Home Robertson, John

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hood, Jimmy

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Prescott, John

  Howells, Geraint

  Radice, Giles

  Hoyle, Doug

  Redmond, Martin

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Reid, Dr John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Robertson, George

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Ingram, Adam

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  John, Brynmor

  Short, Clare

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Kilfedder, James

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Lamond, James

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lewis, Terry

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Litherland, Robert

  Wall, Pat

  Livsey, Richard

  Walley, Joan

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Loyden, Eddie

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  McAllion, John

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Winnick, David

  McCartney, Ian

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Worthington, Tony

  McFall, John

  Wray, Jimmy

  McKelvey, William

  McLeish, Henry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  McNamara, Kevin

  Mr. Allen McKay and

  McTaggart, Bob

  Mr. Allen Adams.

  McWilliam, John

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Brazier, Julian

  Allason, Rupert

  Bright, Graham

  Amess, David

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Amos, Alan

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Burt, Alistair

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Butler, Chris

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Butterfill, John

  Atkinson, David

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cash, William

  Bendall, Vivian

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Benyon, W.

  Chope, Christopher

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Conway, Derek

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Boswell, Tim

  Couchman, James

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Cran, James

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Bowis, John

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Day, Stephen

  362

  Dicks, Terry

  Moate, Roger

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Dover, Den

  Nelson, Anthony

  Dykes, Hugh

  Neubert, Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Evennett, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Favell, Tony

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Page, Richard

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Forth, Eric

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Pawsey, James

  Franks, Cecil

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Freeman, Roger

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  French, Douglas

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Fry, Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Gardiner, George

  Price, Sir David

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Raffan, Keith

  Gill, Christopher

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Rathbone, Tim

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Redwood, John

  Gorst, John

  Renton, Tim

  Gow, Ian

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Riddick, Graham

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Gregory, Conal

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Grist, Ian

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Ground, Patrick

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Grylls, Michael

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Shersby, Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hannam, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Harris, David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Steen, Anthony

  Hayes, Jerry

  Stern, Michael

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Hayward, Robert

  Sumberg, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Summerson, Hugo

  Heddle, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Hill, James

  Thurnham, Peter

  Hind, Kenneth

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Tracey, Richard

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

  Tredinnick, David

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Trippier, David

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Trotter, Neville

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Walden, George

  Irvine, Michael

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Jack, Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Janman, Tim

  Ward, John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Watts, John

  Key, Robert

  Wheeler, John

  Knapman, Roger

  Whitney, Ray

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Lang, Ian

  Wilshire, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Lord, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Maclean, David

  Yeo, Tim

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mills, Iain

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Lords amendment agreed to.

New clause

  RIGHT OF SUCCESSION OF SPOUSE
  Lords amendment: No, 18, after claus 28 insert the following new clause—
  ".—(1) In any case where—
  360

  (a) the sole tenant under an assured tenancy dies; and

  (b) immediately before the death the tenant's spouse was occupying the house as his or her only or principal home; and

  (c) the tenant was not himself a successor as explained in subsection (2) or (3) below,

  the tenant's spouse shall, as from the death and for so long, as he or she retains possession of the house without being entitled to do so under a contractual tenancy, be entitled to a statutory assured tenancy of the house.
  (2) For the purposes of this section, a tenant was a successor in relation to a tenancy—

  (a) if the tenancy had become vested in him either by virtue of this section or under the will or intestacy of a previous tenant; or

  (b) if he was a statutory assured tenant by virtue of section 3A of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984; or

  (c) if at some time before the tenant's death the tenancy was a joint tenancy held by him and one or more other persons and, prior to his death, he had become the sole tenant by survivorship; or

  (d) in the case of a tenancy (hereinafter referred to as "the new tenancy") which was granted to him (alone or jointly with others) if—

  (i) at some time before the grant of the new tenancy he was, by virtue of paragraph (a), (b) or (c) above, a successor to an earlier tenancy of the same or substantially the same house as is let under the new tenancy; and

  (ii) at all times since he became such a successor he has been a tenant (alone or jointly with others) of the house which is let under the new tenancy or of a house which is substantially the same as that house.

  (3) No order for possession under Ground 7 of Schedule 5 to this Act shall be made—

  (a) in relation to a case to which this section relates by virtue of subsection (1) above; or

  (b) where the tenant's spouse succeeds to the tenancy under the will or intestacy of the tenant.

  (4) For the purposes of this section a person who was living with the tenant at the time of the tenant's death as his or her wife or husband shall be treated as the tenant's spouse."
  Read a Second time.
  Amendment (a) proposed to the Lords amendment: in line 5, leave out from 'house' to end of line 7.—[Mr. Home Robertson.]
  Qustion put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
  The house divided: Ayes 151, Noes202.
  Question accordingly negatived.
  Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 31

  REFERENCE OF EXCESSIVE RENTS TO RENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
  Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 18, line 35, leave out "of similar tenancies"
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 21.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: These amendments relate to a point that was first raised by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) when we discussed the Bill in Standing Committee. He was concerned that there were likely to be very few short assured tenancies in any one locality in rural areas in Scotland. In such circumstances, the rent assessment committee might be unable to make a determination of rent under clause 31 because of a lack of similar tenancies of similar houses.
  We have taken on board that concern. These amendments make it clear that a rent committee determining the rent of a short assured tenancy should consider the rents of all assured tenancies, whether short or not, as evidence for the appropriate market level of rent. However, when reaching its determination, clearly the committee will bear in mind that rents for short assured tenancies will often be lower than those for ordinary assured tenancies. I hope that that change meets with the approval of the House.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The only query that arises from the Minister's speech is that not very long ago he was saying that a short assured tenancy and an assured tenancy were one and the same thing, so far as concerned the provisions of the Bill. Now he is saying that there will have to be an amendment to establish that they are the same for the purposes of considerations by rent assessment committees. Perhaps the Minister will return to that point.
  This extension of the scope of the rent assessment committee to compare a rent that is the subject of an appeal against other rents charged in the locality, which now includes those for all assured tenancies and not just short assured tenancies, is obviously a minor improvement and one that we accept. However, perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to address himself to the fact that the market rent likely to be established through this process will almost certainly be considerably higher in many cases than that which many people would regard as being affordable. How will that gap be bridged?
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) spoke of what is an affordable rent and what is a market rent. Obviously he does not realise that if a rent is set at a level that is not affordable, the property will not be let—and that would not be in the interests of landlords in the rural areas, of which he probably knows much more than I do, having himself been a landlord. The market will reflect the situation in whatever locality, and if landlords are determined to let their properties, they will fix rents at levels that people can afford.
  Lord James Hamilton-Douglas: I repeat my earlier comment—that a short assured tenancy is a form of assured tenancy. The particular concerns voiced in Committee were to the effect that there would not be sufficient evidence available in respect of short assured tenancies. These amendments meet that point, and I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker).
  Mr. McAllion: The Minister said that the rent assessment committee will only be able to operate on the basis that it will be able to compare the rents of similar short assured tenancies in the locality. What will happen in the early stages, when the Act is first applied, and when assured and short assured tenancies are first set up? Will tenants have no recourse to a rent assessment committee because there will be insufficient numbers of assured and short assured tenancies with which to compare their rents? How will a market rent be arrived at in those circumstances?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can only say to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) that I have asked exactly the same question that he has just asked.
  Mr. McAllion: Will the Minister tell the House if he got an answer?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I certainly did get an answer, which was that there are plenty of evidence and precedents to give indications, and that there will be no shortage of expertise among those serving on rent assessment committees. We believe that it will not be a problem. The amendments go a long way to meeting the worries that were expressed.
  Mr. McAllion: Will the Minister tell the House what evidence there is other than comparing other short assured and assured tenancy rents? What other evidence can be taken into consideration?
  Mr. Home Robertson: Will it be the weather?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Basically, the rent assessment committees will be well aware of market rents that have been fixed in comparable circumstances in Scotland. I have no doubt that they will take them into account.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 21 and 22 agreed to.

Clause 33

  DAMAGES FOR UNLAWFUL EVICTION
  Lords amendment: No. 23, in page 19, line 22, leave out "3rd December 1987" and insert "6th July 1988"
  7.45 pm
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26, and amendment (a).
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: These amendments all relate to the new right to damages that clause 33 gives to an illegally evicted tenant. As I believe all right hon. and hon. Members agree, the increased protection and

  365
  compensation for harassed and illegally evicted tenants that the Bill introduces are an important element in our reform of the private rented sector.
  Amendment No. 24 removes from clause 33(2) the need for an illegally evicted tenant to prove that his former landlord intended to force him to leave. Proof of intention has always been difficult to achieve. In clause 35, dealing with the new offence of harassment, the test is already that the landlord must only have known or have had reasonable cause to believe that his actions would make his tenant leave. Therefore, amendment No. 24 brings the provisions of clause 33 into line. Because the offence leading to a liability to damages is changed, it is necessary to change also the date from which liability can arise to that when the changes were first introduced to Parliament. That is what amendment No. 23 achieves.
  Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are different and in effect give an additional defence to a landlord who faces a claim for damages under clause 33.
  Clause 33(7) provides that in proceedings to enforce a liability, a landlord may defend his actions by proving that he believed or had reasonable cause to believe that when they took place, the occupier no longer stayed in the house. Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 provide a similar defence if the liability arises because of the withholding or withdrawing of services. In such circumstances, the landlord will have a defence if he can show that he had reasonable grounds to withdraw or withhold the services. That might apply, for example, if the landlord was genuinely of the opinion that the tenant had left the house to work elsewhere for a period, or that he had made alternative arrangements to receive the services in question. I believe that these amendments improve the new right to damages in clause 33.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I doubt if it will give that much comfort to someone who is being evicted with his family from his home to think that he will have the option over the next six months or one year of trying to fight his case in the courts, in order to win damages for that eviction. The fact is that the family concerned will be out in the street trying to find accommodation of some kind. The whole concept of damages for unlawful eviction is bizarre.
  The entire Bill is designed to make it as easy as possible for private landlords to evict people lawfully, so it will be a very careless landlord who, under the new legislation, will carry out such action illegally. I suspect that the concept of illegal eviction could become redundant. However, the principle of imposing penalties for harassment is certainly worth developing, and we accept it as far as it goes. The rest of the legislation is so flawed that this fig leaf cannot do much to conceal the problems.
  I refer briefly to the specific impact of amendment No. 25, which refers to harassment in the form of withdrawal of services. I presume that that means electricity, water, drainage, and other services of that nature.
  The amendment will establish a ground for defence if the landlord had reasonable grounds for withdrawing those services from the tenant. It could be construed that it is reasonable, for example, to cut off the electricity supply if the landlord is in dispute with the electricity board or if the cable or other equipment has failed. The tenant may have nothing to do with the problem between the landlord and the electricity board. Amendment (a) would restrict that ground to cases where the tenant was at
  366
  fault and where he had been given an opportunity to remedy that. I foresee genuine problems and I invite the Minister seriously to consider amendment (a).
  Mr. Doran: Clause 33 will be improved by the addition of Lords amendment No. 24. I know from experience that there is a major problem in encouraging procurators fiscal to take action against landlords. I hope that the amendment will be a genuine improvement, but we shall have to wait to experience it in practice. However, although it improves the civil position of tenants by giving them the right to raise actions for damages, I hope that the Minister understands that the procurators fiscal need to be encouraged. No greater proof could be necessary before the civil courts than a successful prosecution of a landlord in the criminal courts for harassment. I hope that the Government will find some way to encourage procurators fiscal seriously to consider such cases, as I know from experience the difficulty of persuading the police and the procurators fiscal to take them up.
  I am interested in the scope of clause 33 as expanded by the amendment. A case that has been worrying me for some time involves the tenant of a private landlord who agreed to move while the house was modernised and improved with the aid of public grants. She has been refused the right to return to her home, and in my experience that is not uncommon. Will the new legislation give my constituent the right to raise an action for civil damages against the landlord? The legal advice that she has been given so far is that her only entitlement would be to removal costs, because they would be the extent of loss that could be established.
  That is unsatisfactory. Will an amended clause 33 improve my constituent's position?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman fairly said that we would have to experience the provision in practice. That is true of all legislation. His reference to procurators fiscal is a matter for the Lord Advocate—
  Mr. Doran: I understand that the Minister has responsibility for law and order, so perhaps he could reply to my question.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is a matter for which the Lord Advocate has responsibility, but I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's points are put before him. I am sure that once the provisions are enshrined in legislation they will be taken seriously—
  Mr. Home Robertson: Who by?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Obviously, they will be taken seriously by those who uphold the law—for example, the police and law-abiding citizens such as the hon. Gentleman.
  I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) would give me the details of the case of his constituent to which he referred so that I can investigate and come back to him on it.
  The Bill very significantly improves the protection available to a tenant against a landlord who seeks to operate outwith the law. The new provisions on improved protection against illegal eviction and the new right of a tenant to compensation have been widely welcomed.
  The provisions give a landlord specific defences that he can seek to employ to justify his actions, but they involve persuasion of the sheriff. I believe that to be fair and just.

  367
  The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has argued for the new defence to be qualified. I am afraid that his proposal would, in practice, add nothing to the effect of Lords amendment No. 26, and might in certain circumstances be detrimental.
  Any landlord who sought to invoke the new defence would need to persuade the sheriff that he had reasonable grounds to withdraw or withhold the services. If appropriate, the sheriff would no doubt take into account any steps the landlord had taken to discuss the matter with his tenant, to offer alternatives, or to come to some other mutually acceptable arrangement.
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can be confident that the defence as set out in Lords amendment No. 26 is not too loosely drawn, and in the light of my explanation I hope that he will not pursue his amendment.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 24 to 26 agreed to.

Clause 34

  THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES
  Lords amendment: No. 27, in page 21, line 3, leave out from first "any" to end of line 5 and insert
  "substantial development of any of the land in which the landlord's interest subsists or to demolish the whole or part of any building on that land."
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 28.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: These amendments go a long way towards meeting the concern expressed in Committee by the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) and others. They enable the sheriff to take into account development value in certain circumstances when he is assessing the damage to which an illegally evicted tenant is entitled under clauses 33 and 34.
  Clause 34 sets out how the damages should be assessed, briefly, the intention is that they should equal any gain the landlord would expect to obtain by owning the house with vacant possession rather than with a sitting tenant. The amendments mean that in assessing the potential gain, the sheriff can take into account any gain the landlord would make if he redeveloped the property for other residential purposes. That is directed, for example, at landlords who might otherwise be tempted to evict their tenants illegally so as to convert the property into flats for sale, which is the most common form of redevelopment.
  I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that the amendments strike a fair balance that should moderate the behaviour of unscrupulous landlords and offer tenants increased compensation if they are illegally evicted.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 28 agreed to.

Clause 42

  TRANSFER OF EXISTING TENANCIES
  Lords amendment: No. 29, in page 27, line 22, leave out "it belongs to"
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 30 to 37.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This group of amendments may look a little odd, but I can assure hon. Members that they are necessary.
  The original need to amend the clause arose because we did not extend the provisions of clause 42 to Crown tenancies. Amendment No. 37 puts it right. However, that amendment makes amendments Nos. 29 to 36 necessary to maintain the grammatical integrity of the Bill. Without them, the new paragraph we are adding would not make sense.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Not much of the Bill makes sense, but at least there will be some grammatical integrity, if nothing else. It would be helpful if the Minister could say a word about the impact of the extended scope of the clause to Crown tenants and Government Departments.
  I am glad of the opportunity to speak to amendment No. 33, which refers to whether a house belongs to the Scottish Special Housing Association. I do not know whether hon. Members read The Scotsman on Monday, which referred to 1,700 SSHA houses in the Borders that apparently are to be transferred to a new trust, Waverley Housing, set up by, of all people the Earl of Ancram—that old friend of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths).
  There has been much jumping of guns in anticipation of the passing of this squalid little Bill but, quite frankly, that one takes the biscuit. The Scotsman states that the object of Waverley Housing will be to
  "protect Borders tenants from profiteering private landlords who might snap up properties in a free-for-all when the SSHA ceases to exist."
  The Government are legislating for that free-for-all. Indeed, it can take place only if Scottish Homes, acting as the agent for the Secretary of State, allows it. Interestingly enough, in between his excursions to such places as Richmond and Epping Forest, Michael Ancram will be one of the Secretary of State's creatures on the board of Scottish Homes as well as undertaking the Waverley Housing set-up in the Borders.
  The significance of all that is that those tenants will lose their status as secure tenants as soon as ownership of their properties is transferred to Ancram Homes, Waverley Homes, or whatever it wants to call itself. That is inevitable. I understand that there will be a temporary holding operation and that a management trust will run matters, but the ownership of the houses will remain with Scottish Homes.
  Mr. Hood: Will my hon. Friend recall the Tory Members of Parliament who were defeated in the last general election in Scotland, and name one who has not been found a job by the Tory Government?
  8 pm
  Mr. Home Robertson: I am a little worried about Alex Pollock. He is the one who has been passed over. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) must feel a deep sense of guilt about that. My hon. Friend is quite right. There have been many jobs for the lads.
  Dr. Norman A. Goodman: What about the lasses?
  Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is quite right. Anna McCurley has landed a job on the Horserace Betting Levy Board. Yes, there are plenty of jobs. Michael Ancram has so many jobs that there are none left for poor old Alex Pollock.
  Much more seriously, what will happen to tenants when their houses are transferred from the ownership of Scottish Homes in due course and are taken over by Ancram Homes or whatever it will be called? They will lose their security as secure tenants, they will lose their protection against excessive rents, and they will lose a range of vital rights. It is a matter of acute concern. Frankly, all the assurances about the future of SSHA tenants will not even last until the Bill gets Royal Assent.
  Several of my hon. Friends may remember that the Secretary of State for Scotland actually criticised Opposition Members for scaremongering when we said that SSHA tenants would be sold down the river. But, already, he and his cronies are at it. Tenants and local authorities in the Borders have not been consulted. There has just been a sordid little carve-up, agreed in the Tory central bunker in Chester street, Edinburgh. The 1,700 tenants will be transferred from the SSHA in anticipation of transferring Scottish Homes to the new private trust orchestrated by Michael Ancram. That is a shameful manipulation by this minority Government, and I have no hesitation in pledging to restore proper protection to tenants at the earliest opportunity. I am grateful for the opportunity presented by the amendment to highlight the despicable action taking place in the Borders.
  Mr. McAllion: I, too, am grateful for the opportunity to ask what has happened in the Borders with the Waverley housing association. I remember the hours that we spent in Committee debating the rights of Scottish Homes tenants and whether they were threatened by the legislation. We were given repeated assurances by the Minister that there would be no element of compulsion on Scottish Homes tenants, that they could remain Scottish Homes tenants as long as they wished to do so, and that they would keep all the public sector tenants' rights that they had previously.
  The Minister came to Dundee, East, along with Mr. Derek Mason, who at that time was responsible for the SSHA, but he has also now landed a plum job with Scottish Homes. The two of them took the opportunity to blazon out to the press in Dundee that no Scottish Homes tenant's position was threatened and that, as long as that tenant wishes to remain a tenant of the new housing agency, nobody will interfere. Of course, the new agency has not even been set up, and already 1,700 houses have been taken out of the control of Scottish Homes. Scottish Homes' ownership of the 1,700 houses on the Borders is a technical matter.
  From a report in The Scotsman, I understand that the new Waverley housing association will act on behalf of Scottish Homes. It will manage houses, control rents, be responsible for maintenance, and negotiate house sales with tenants. For every possible purpose that can be conceived, the Waverley housing association, not Scottish Homes, will be the new landlord. Has any one tenant been consulted? Not in the least. They had to read about it in
  370
  The Scotsman. The House was not told about it. The Standing Committee that dealt with the Bill was given no warning. We were led to believe entirely the opposite.
  The Minister assured us that every tenant would be consulted and that nothing would be done to take them out of the control of Scottish Homes unless they so wished. The rights of 1,700 tenants have been ignored by the Minister. Will he have the courage to go to the Dispatch Box, in a place where he is accountable, and explain to the House and to the people in the Borders why it is happening and why they and other people in Scotland have not been consulted? It is an arrogant abuse of power by the Government. I know that the Minister is a nice man who will probably sit on his bum and say nothing, but he should try to defend what the Government are doing in Scotland. There is no defence.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I shall speak briefly, following the lurid comments from the hon. Members for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). Anyone reading their comments would think that nobody should have anything to do with any housing association in Scotland. However, such bodies have a good record. They have shown themselves to be good, caring landlords and have acted on behalf of tenants.
  Mr. McAllion rose—
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman has had his opportunity to speak. He has made his lurid comments.
  These measures are bound to be beneficial. They take decision-making nearer the people who matter—the tenants.
  The individual whom Opposition Members have mentioned is doing the job free. He is not getting any fee for it. I should have thought that all of us would commend people who are prepared to do things in their own time and at no charge to tenants or the public purse. Opposition Members think that everything should be run by nanny state.
  Mr. McAllion: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Walker: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute.
  Conservative Members believe that it is better for things to be run by individuals.
  Mr. Alistair Darling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Walker: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Dundee, East, as I said I would when I finish my sentence, and I shall.
  Opposition Members have overlooked the importance of this matter, which is a method of bringing decision-making nearer to tenants.
  Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Ancram is doing the job out of the goodness of his heart. As I understand it, Mr. Ancram has been offered a position on the board of Scottish Homes. In return for accepting that position, he will be given a substantial payment of £3,000 to £4,000 for his expenses. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is the case? Will he accept also that Mr. Ancram, as an ex-politician, may be seen to benefit from legislation that he helped to draft? In the

  371
  circumstances, should not Mr. Ancram donate his fee of £4,000 to the defence committee for those people in Scotland who cannot pay the poll tax?
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting observation. Scottish Homes is a large organisation dealing with tenants in properties throughout Scotland. It is quite right and proper that people who give their time should receive some reimbursement. The amount of reimbursement is quite trivial, considering what one might expect if one does a job conscientiously. That is true of many other public positions. I do not make that comment purely in respect of this narrow matter. We ask too many people to give too much time to public matters. We do not take into account the impingement on their time. Councillors and others are within that category.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East mentioned that Mr. Ancram will be paid. It is a big job for Scottish Homes. He accepted the chairmanship of the much smaller body near where he lives. He is a local person giving time to a local interest, and that must surely be to the benefit of the local community.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman calls £3,000 to £4,000 trivial. Does he not realise that there are millions of pensioner couples in this country who, because the pension has been depressed by the Government, are restricted to that very sum? Millions of people are on income support because of the unemployment levels that the Government have generated, and they have to live on £60 to £70 per week. The hon. Gentleman calls that sort of sum trivial, but it is not trivial for the millions of people who must live on it.
  Mr. Walker: I make no apology for the words that I used. We want people to give of their time in the public domain. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think carefully about what I am saying. The sums that we pay busy professional people for being councillors or the like does not reflect the level of input that we expect of them, especially considering the substantial sums that they are paid outside the public sphere.
  Mr. Darling: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we are dealing, not with an ordinary person but with somebody who was a Minister, who lost his seat and was given a job by the Secretary of State? Does he not think that there is something deplorable and even sick about what is happening in Scotland when defeated Tory candidates are found jobs here, there and everywhere? In this particular case the person is presiding over thousands of people who have been transferred like sheep, with no choice in the matter. Yet the hon. Gentleman says that this man is giving of his time freely. That is not normal. It is a new departure and offensive to most decent people.
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is a relatively new Member to the House and I shall forgive him for not knowing that successive Labour Governments have found work for competent people who, for whatever reason, have lost their seats. I do not object to that.
  Mr. Hood: List them.
  Mr. Walker: I could list names, but I shall not do so this evening. The Labour Government were right to do that.
  372
  We are touching on a principle, but confusing it by introducing personalities. That is a great mistake which the Labour party frequently makes. We should surely be able to agree that if there are people in any of the parties who have given good service to the nation, are competent and still have years of good service ahead of them, we would be foolish not to make use of them. It would be a mistake for the nation.
  If we were talking about paying someone £50,000 or £100,000 a year, I could understand the objection, but we are talking, not of enormous sums but relatively small sums compared with the input that we expect. The nation gets a bargain from many people in public service. I am sorry to hear the Opposition argue in this way. I would have expected support for what I am saying. We should look much more carefully at how we reward people who give of their time for public service.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are getting away from the amendment and I am sure that we shall return to it now.
  Mrs. Fyfe: We are talking not about an able, competent person but about the Earl of Ancram. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about giving due reward for public service, does he support the Government's continued determination not to award councillors a decent rate for their efforts?
  Mr. Walker: I would have thought that the hon. Lady would have been clear about what I said. The recompense that we give councillors is unsuitable for people of a high calibre whom we expect to give a lot of time. Successive Governments have been mistaken on that for many years. I would have thought that that came over loud and clear from my remarks. That is my view and I have held it for many years.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I invite the House to come back to the amendment.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should like to respond briefly to the questions on the Waverley housing trust. I understand that it is proposed that the trust will take over the management of the SSHA stock in the Borders. It will be for the SSHA to decide on Waverley's housing proposals since management issues are for the association. The association has raised certain consequential matters with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and it has yet to take a final decision on new management arrangements, so the whole matter is under consideration.
  The objective will be to improve the standards of service offered to tenants and the objectives of the trust are wholly concerned with benefiting the local community. Therefore, it is most encouraging that somebody of the calibre of Michael Ancram who has expertise in housing and is well known for his interest has been sufficiently public-spirited to offer himself—
  Mr. Home Robertson: Keep a straight face.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am keeping a straight face—for the unpaid post of chairman of the charitable trust. The same qualifications will enable him to perform an extremely valuable role as a member of the new board of Scottish Homes. I endorse the Secretary of State's decision to offer him an appointment. Any conflict of interest would be unlikely, and in any case there are

  373
  well-established rules and procedures for board members to declare such an interest and avoid participating in discussions.
  So far as political considerations are relevant, Mr. Charles Sneddon, who was appointed for his personal contribution, as were the others, based on his background of involvement with the council of management of the SSHA and his local authority, will be particularly helpful to Scottish Homes. He is a prominent member of a party other than the Conservative party, as the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) well knows.
  8.15 pm
  Dr. Godman: This is a serious matter. Surely it is in the interests of natural justice for tenants or their representatives to be involved in management, consultations and negotiations?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I understand that the trust also raised the possibility of acquiring the stock that it manages at the end of three years. At that stage the Government and Scottish Homes are committed to ensuring that the tenants are fully consulted, certainly before any purchase proceeds. We shall consider voluntary disposals in the context of another Bill.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister explain what will happen to those tenants? Will there be a ballot or will each individual tenant be able to exercise the option to remain in the public sector or transfer to an insecure tenancy?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is taking me well outside the terms of the amendment. That will be discussed in the context of the other Bill under voluntary disposals. The same conditions and considerations would apply to the SSHA and Scottish Homes as have been set out for local authorities. We shall return to that subject.
  The amendments are required because of the drafting and grammatical rule which requires that the contents of a tabulated list in the Bill do not go beyond the words which govern each and every item in the list. In other words, if the phrase had not been moved by means of the amendments it would have been held to apply to both parts of the new paragraph which would not then make sense since it would begin :
  "it belongs to … is held in trust for Her Majesty."
  For that reason, the matter had to be clarified and tidied up.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 30 to 37 agreed to.

Clause 43

  STATUTORY TENANTS: SUCCESSION
  Lords amendment: No. 38, in page 27, line 42, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
  "(1) In section 3 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 (which makes provision as to statutory tenants and tenancies) in subsection (1) after the word "sections" there shall be inserted "3A,"."
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move that, This House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we can also discuss Lords amendments No. 39, 76, Government amendment (d) and Lords amendment No. 83.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 76 make two changes to clause 43 and schedule 6. One is purely a presentational one. The other introduces transitional provisions to protect the succession rights of certain prospective tenants. The presentational change is quite significant and is designed to make what are complex changes to complex legislation easier to follow.
  As a result of the Lords amendments clause 43 will introduce a new section 3A to the 1984 Act to introduce different schedules which will come into play in different circumstances. Schedule 6 becomes the vehicle for importing two new schedules to supplement schedule 1 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984, which will remain in its present form subject to a minor drafting change, made by amendment No. 83.
  Schedule 1 of the 1984 Act will continue to apply to succession in cases where the original tenant and the first successor to a regulated tenancy die before commencement of Part II of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 pave the way for the new format of schedule 6 to the Bill, set out in amendment No. 76, which introduces two new schedules —1A and 1B—to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984.
  Schedule 1 A will apply to succession in cases in which the original tenant of a protected tenancy dies after commencement of part II of the Bill. Schedule 1B will apply to succession in cases in which someone who is a first successor to a regulated tenancy dies after commencement of part II of the Bill, but the original tenant dies before commencement.
  As to transitional provisions, hon. Members will, I am sure, be pleased that the new schedules 1A and 1B incorporate the transitional provisions which provide a right of succession to a statutory assured tenancy for members of a tenant's family who have already lived with the tenant for six months at the commencement date of the Bill. They will not have to fulfil the new two-year residence requirement.
  As a result of the recasting of schedule 6 achieved by amendment 76, an entry in schedule 10 of the Bill—the repeal schedule—is no longer required. The consequential amendment in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend removes that unnecessary entry.
  Mr. Home Robertson: This is no big deal. It is merely a redraft of clause 43 and part I of schedule 6 on succession of tenant. Our main objection to the original draft of this part of the legislation still stands. It is that the relative will now have to live with the tenant for two years before he or she qualifies as a successor. Amendment No. 76 restricts that to six months only in cases that arise immediately before the Bill comes into effect. Apart from that, until the legislation is repealed or drastically amended, as it must be, two years will be the rule. That will cause a special problem for members of a family who may make great sacrifices so as to move in with an elderly or infirm relative and care for him. If the tenant does not survive for the full two years such a caring member of a family could find himself made homeless, for his pains, on the death of the tenant. The Lords amendment is no worse than the original drafting, so we shall not vote against it, but I fear that this aspect of the Bill will lead to rough justice, and I undertake to review it at the earliest opportunity.
  Mrs. Fyfe: A constituent of mine gave up her home to go and care for an elderly relative. In this highly unusual case, when the elderly relative died my constituent then

  375
  went to care for a sick and dying brother. She spent a considerable time away from her home and ended up losing it. What would happen to such a person under this legislation? She did not spend as much as two years with either person, yet had spent much time away from her home. She would lose her home and not gain the tenancy of her parent's or brother's homes.
  My constituent had no work. She is too old to find work and lives on social security. In Glasgow's housing crisis she is at the tail end of a long waiting list. Has the Minister thought through the sort of cases that will occur in real life? Conservative Members must know from their surgeries that things like this happen. I can understand efforts being made to prevent people from jumping in cynically at the last minute by going to live with a sick and elderly relative in the hopes of succeeding to the tenancy, but two years is far too long. People may go for as little as six months in a genuine effort to care for an elderly relative and then have no right to succeed to the tenancy. That is wrong.
  The Government have made great play of care in the community, of driving elderly people out of hospitals and into the community. That has meant that women with low-paid jobs or no jobs at all lose their homes. That cannot be the intention even of this Government. Surely they do not want to throw on to the streets women who have devoted years of their lives to caring for others.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Opposition Members have raised the same points as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) in Committee.
  When we introduced the Bill we pointed out that as things stand a landlord can find a property that he lets the subject of a series of successions which put the house out of his reach for generations. Extensive succession rights will not apply to assured tenancies and the Government believe that succession rights in regulated tenancies should also be restricted. In our original proposals for succession in regulated tenancies we envisaged that a relative of a tenant other than a spouse would have to live with the tenant for five years before the tenant's death before he or she would qualify as a successor. That would also be one of the conditions that would have to be fulfilled if a second succession was to occur.
  In Committee, the hon. Member for Dundee, East and organisations involved in housing matters argued strongly that five years was too long and should be reduced, and on reflection the Government agreed. Consequently, two major changes to the succession rules were made.
  First, on Report, the five-year requirement was reduced to two years. Secondly, as well as making the provisions easier to understand, Lords amendments Nos. 38, 39, 76 and 83 introduced transitional provisions to protect the position of prospective successors who, on the death of a tenant after commencement, would not meet the two-year qualifying period, but through residence before commencement would have met the six-month qualifying period that existed then.
  The Government believe the changes have improved the Bill and strike a fair balance between the interests of landlords and tenants.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 39 agreed to.

Clause 46

  INFORMATION AS TO DETERMINATION OF RENTS
  Lords amendment: No. 40, in page 29, line 6, leave out from "information" to end of line 8 and insert
  "as may be so specified with respect to rents under assured tenancies which have been the subject of, or taken into account on, references or applications to, or determinations by, rent assessment committees."
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment
  The amendment meets a concern expressed at an earlier stage by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). It increases the kinds of information about market rents that the rent assessment panel can be required to keep by the Secretary of State under clause 46. In the form in which the Bill left the House, clause 46 limited the information to be held to that relating to actual determinations made by rent assessment committees for assured tenancies. The amendment enables my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to require the rent assessment panel to keep information derived not only from applications that result in rent determinations, but from applications that do not.
  There are three circumstances in which no determination will be given. The first is when the application is withdrawn, presumably because landlord and tenant have reached an amicable agreement. The second is in the case of a short assured tenancy, when there are insufficient similar assured tenancies in an area for the rent assessment committee to make comparisons. The third case is when it is clear that the rent set by the landlord for an assured tenancy is not excessive in relation to rents for similar properties in an area. It would obviously be helpful to the rent assessment committees and to landlords and tenants to have readily available the wider pool of information about rent levels that the amendment will allow. I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to. [Special entry.]

Clause 53

  RIGHT CONFERRED BY PART III
  Lords amendment: No. 41, in page 31, line 3, at end insert—
  '( ) In subsection (1) above, "heritable proprietor" includes any person entitled under section 3 of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1924 (disposition by uninfeft person) to grant a disposition.'
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  The amendment covers a technical conveyancing point and is intended to ensure that the expression "heritable proprietor" for the purposes of the tenants' choice provisions will cover all public sector landlords, who are, or may be, in conveyancing terms, "uninfeft proprietors". This term applies when they become proprietors by Act of Parliament but have not completed title in their own names in the register of sasines, or land registers. The amendment is needed to avoid any doubt that public sector landlords have a duty to sell their houses under part III to approved landlords, assuming that the tenants so wish. A similar definition applies in the right-to-buy legislation, and we think it appropriate to keep the two procedures in line as far as possible.
  Mr. Home Robertson: As the Minister says, this is a minor extension of the definition of proprietor for the purposes of the landlords' choice provisions of the Bill. I deliberately used the term "landlords' choice", because part III of the Bill has everything to do with extending private landlords' choice and nothing to do with extending choice for tenants. We are worried about the likelihood of abuse of this scheme by unscrupulous speculators who may try to entice tenants to consent to the transfer of their houses out of the public sector.
  We are also worried about the possible break-up of tenant management co-operatives. The main message on part III of the Bill which should go out from the House and from any responsible person in Scotland, is that a tenant should think very carefully before allowing a private landlord to take over his public sector house. Such a transition would lead to an immediate and drastic loss of important rights of security and loss of rent control. We shall need to return to that topic when the Housing Bill for the United Kingdom as a whole comes back to the House. That will raise the possibility of large-scale transfers without the consent of tenants. This is an alarming principle and the House should deplore the Government's action.
  Question put and agreed to.

Clause 55

  APPLICATION TO EXERCISE RIGHTS CONFERRED BY THIS PART AND OFFER TO SELL
  Lords amendment: No. 42, in page 33, line 32, leave out
  "as determined by the district valuer"
  8.30 pm
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 43 and 44.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: During consideration of the Bill in another place, there was much debate about whether there should be an avenue of appeal against the valuation determined by the district valuer on a property to be transferred under the tenants' choice provisions in part III. While it was not considered appropriate that there should be a right of appeal after a valuation has been made, it was accepted that it would be desirable to bring tenants' choice valuation procedures more closely into line with those in the right-to-buy legislation. The amendments made in the other place offer a choice between the district valuer and another qualified valuer nominated by the landlord, but acceptable to the applicant. Amendment No. 43 also clarifies that it is for the landlord to decide whether it should be the district valuer or another qualified valuer who should determine the market value. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 43 and 44 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 45, in page 34, line 3, at end insert—
  "( ) Where the circumstances are such that, on the relevant date, a house, if offered for sale in accordance with subsection (6) above, would not realise any price then—

  (a) for the purposes of that subsection, the price shall be taken to be—

  (i) such amount as would require to be paid to Scottish Homes or a person who, on the
  378
  relevant date, was approved under section 54 above in order that it or she would willingly so acquire the house, expressed as a negative; or

  (ii) where Scottish Homes or that person would willingly so acquire it for no consideration, nil;

  (b) the market value of the house may be deterniined under that subsection to be a negative value or nil;

  (c) where the market value is so determined, the reference in subsection (5) above to a price equal to the market value shall be construed accordingly and references in this section to selling a house and the purchaser of it shall be construed respectively as references to disposing of it and the acquirer of it; and

  (d) where, by virtue of paragraph (c) above, the price of the house is in the negative, the obligation to pay shall be upon the landlord."

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  The main purpose of the amendment is to clarify that the property transferring under the tenants' choice provisions in part III can have not only a positive or zero value but, on occasions, a negative value.
  Most houses in the public sector in Scotland have been maintained to a reasonable standard and are likely, therefore, under tenants' choice, to attract a positive value on transfer. However, there are some tenanted properties where this is not so, and these properties now need significant renovation to bring them up to the desired standard. In the very worst of such housing, it is possible that the cost to a potential new landlord of bringing the property into a reasonable state of repair could exceed the value of the property after the necessary renovation had been effected. In such cases few, if any, new landlords would be willing to participate in the acquisition of public sector housing under the powers in part III of the Bill, or would be willing to do so only in return for rent payments well above the going rate for such housing, and therefore well above the level that the tenant could afford to pay.
  One can well imagine that it will be those tenants in local authority housing which is in the worst state of repair and who are least satisfied with the service provided by the local authority who will be most willing to contemplate a change of landlord. Therefore, the tenants' choice provisions should be especially attractive to such tenants. There should be no artificial barriers to such transfers proceeding. If we did not specifically permit negative valuations, and if we did not oblige local authorities to make payments equivalent to the amount of the negative valuation, the result would be an impediment to transfers.
  I have considered the position from the point of view of the local authority or other public sector landlord whose tenants wish to transfer. Such landlords may argue that having to pay some new landlord to take away their housing would be a quite unacceptable form of asset stripping. I do not accept that, because if a house is in such a poor state of repair that it would cost more to renovate than the house would be worth when the work is done, the house in its present state is clearly a liability. In such circumstances, rent payments by tenants are probably insufficient to cover the cost of maintenance work necessary to prevent the housing deteriorating further. Moreover, in fulfilling its duties to the tenants the local authority would inevitably soon have to spend substantial sums to bring the property up to standard. By transferring the house to a new landlord the local authority is relieving

  379
  itself of the liability to meet such costs. The concept of negative valuations is therefore sensible, and fair to all parties.
  Mr. Home Robertson: This is an outrageous proposition and the Minister should be ashamed of himself for reading a brief of such nonsense. There is an urgent need for investment in public sector housing to rent and a need for investment in house building because as many as 30,000 people become homeless in Scotland every year. It is an outrageous proposition in view of the huge waiting list for public sector housing to rent. Shelter estimates that as many as 192,000 Scots are now waiting for houses. All that the Government can think of doing is to siphon money out of the public sector housing budget so that they can pay private sector landlords to take over public sector property.
  There is a desperate need for investment but there are many calls on the budgets of local housing authorities and it cannot make sense to raid those budgets for the Government's purposes. The Government are legislating to require local authorities to pay speculators to take over housing stocks. That is an interesting new twist to the concept of expropriation without compensation and we should reflect on that idea in connection with the case for the acquisition of private sector housing stock. There is a great deal of substandard and empty private sector housing in Scotland, but the Government are under the happy illusion that it will all he renovated and let under this legislation. I suspect that that will not happen.
  Perhaps we should pursue the precedent being set by this provision and think about taking empty substandard private sector housing stock into public ownership under the housing action area procedure. As far as I know that is still on the statute book. Perhaps we should go the whole hog and require private landlords to pay the local authority for bringing houses up to standard. That is the precedent that the Government are setting in this amendment.
  The Government tell us about tens of thousands of empty or substandard privately owned houses in Scotland and say that they want to do something about them. Let us consider some drastic action to get that criminally neglected property back into service for the benefit of people who desperately need houses in Scotland. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is understandably alarmed by the prospect of the effects of this amendment. COSLA says:
  "the Convention is extremely concerned at the prospect of local authority stock being transferred to private landlords at negative values which in effect will mean that local authorities will require to pay the new landlord to take over the stock. The method of valuation which will he used allows the District Valuer to take the state of repair of the house into account twice and the local authority is not allowed to appeal the District Valuer's decision."
  The Government's provision is a totally unwarranted attack on local authorities. Why should a local authority or, more significantly, local tenants, pay speculators to take over property that may have considerable potential but which is in bad condition because of the combined effects of criminal architecture and the malicious under-funding of local authorities by the Government? This provision comes on top of the abolition of the cost floor for council house sales on terms that will be even
  380
  more harmful than those which will apply under the English and Welsh legislation. Once again the remaining tenants will have to pay for the shortfall. They will have to pay for the effects of this legislation. That is wrong and unwarranted and the Minister should be ashamed of himself. We shall oppose this provision.
  Mr. Bill Walker: One of the blights of Scottish housing along with many other blights in the United Kingdom is the vast number of houses which, for whatever reason, were not built to a standard to enable them to last. Many of them were post-war and many such houses suffer from condensation, dampness and other horrors. Some of the schemes are not liked by the people who have been forced in the past to live in them and many houses have become derelict. Anything that can be done to revitalise those areas must be good. I pay tribute to Dundee district council, which has been imaginative and has shown the way that a combination of local government and private sector can bring a dramatic change to housing that is in a state of ghastly disrepair and houses the reputation of which was such that no one wished to live in them.
  We have to view the amendment along these lines. I accept that in some circumstances—I trust not in all—it may be that the cost of bringing the houses up to an acceptable standard and of changing the face of estates so that people will be happy to live in them will be in excess of the value of the property, so the value of the property, taking account of its condition, may be negative. Sadly, some estates in Scotland have been knocked down before people have gone to live in them. Therefore, we cannot be proud of everything that has happened in housing in Scotland—quite the reverse. Too often, we should be ashamed of the properties and even more ashamed that we ask people to live in them.
  It is in that light that I welcome the amendment, because it makes a contribution to real problems, and shows how we can quickly rehabilitate areas that are falling into disrepute and disrepair. I was pleased to see my old home town of Dundee being so progressive, and to see what the council has done to bring back to life estates that had the most appalling reputation over many decades.
  Mr. McAllion: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) for the compliments that he pays to Dundee district council, which has been imaginative in the way that it has tackled the problems of empty and derelict houses and blocks in certain housing schemes. It has done so on its own, without any support from the private sector. It approached the private sector to see whether it would help in such projects, but it did not want to know. The district council conceived these plans, led their implementation and funded them. The private sector came in only at the last stages, so the council should get the credit. However, I am sure that this Minister, and other Ministers, will try to claim credit at the next general election and will tell us what a marvellous job they have done in Dundee, when it has been the Labour-led Dundee district council that has done a marvellous job. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am concerned about the blight that has affected Scottish housing over the past 10 years, not least as a result of Tory housing policy.
  The hon. Gentleman says that the amendment deals with the problem of blocks that have become empty and derelict, but it does not because it deals only with inhabited blocks. We are dealing here with tenants' rights and the

  381
  right to pick. One has to be a tenant before the amendment comes into play. It is strange that the Minister tries to argue that district councils in Scotland collect rents and put tenants into flats that are so run down and neglected that they have a negative value. That is not so. Many tenants in public sector housing in Scotland live in houses that have been neglected for many years because of the failure to invest. The real problem is that the district councils have been forced to rely only on rents to maintain and manage housing.
  A few years ago, Dundee district council received £8 million a year in housing support grant from the Government to help it to maintain the housing stock. It also had a huge rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account, which helped to maintain the housing stock for which it is responsible. That is no longer the case. It has to manage and maintain all its housing stock on the revenue from rents because the Government have stopped housing support grant and rate fund contribution while giving increasingly massive subsidies to the owner-occupier sector through mortgage tax relief. It is strange that the Government can say that they are right to use public subsidy to encourage owner-occupation but that it would be wrong to use public subsidies to maintain public sector rented housing at a decent level that would allow tenants to live in those houses in peace and contentment.
  8.45 pm
  The Minister is saying that if a council tenant makes an agreement with a private sector landlord, the council will have to accept that some negative value will be placed on the house and will have to pay the private sector landlord for taking the house and the tenant off its hands. At the same time, the district council and the ratepayers in the area will be left to pay off the massive borrowing cost for that house. The loans for public sector houses are paid back over 60 years, and most of the houses in Dundee are still being paid for by the district council. The Minister is saying that, on top of that burden, the council will have to pay the private sector to take the property off its hands.
  The Government must accept responsibility for restoring public subsidies to the public sector as well as to the private sector. They must allow district councils to get on with tackling the real problems of housing in Scotland —condensation, dampness and overcrowding—and give public subsidies to enable councils to maintain and manage the stock properly. Instead, the Government are robbing the public sector to fill the pockets of the greedy people in the private sector. That is what this amendment is all about.
  Mrs. Fyfe: I do not know whether the people of Maryhill are more streetwise than people elsewhere in Scotland, but I have yet to meet a district council tenant in Maryhill who has the slightest intention of choosing a private landlord. They are not naive or green or stupid or inexperienced about the wiles of private landlords and any poor soul who was likely to fall into the clutches would quickly be advised by their friends and neighbours not to do so.
  The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has argued that there is no other solution, and that when a house is in an inadequate state and has a low valuation, it should be valued negatively on the market. However, the local authority is not allowed to appeal to the district valuer against what the value of the house is supposed tho
  382
  be. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) pointed out, had the Government maintained housing subsidy, things would not have been as bad. In Glasgow, the housing support grant is half what it was in 1979, and that is allowing for 1979 prices and inflation. In addition, the majority of Scottish housing authorities no longer receive any housing support grant.
  When one considers that Glasgow district council has to spend 40 per cent. of its budget on paying the interest on debts to those who lent it money so that it could get houses built, one realises the size of the problem. That problem has been ignored while the Government's intention has been to make hfe easy for those who want to make easy profits as private sector landlords. They have the house handed to them for nothing and are even made a present of some money along with it. They can then sit back and make a killing doing nothing except filling out a rent book once a month. It is a farce and does nothing to ameliorate people's housing needs, and well the people of Scotland know it.
  Dr. Reid: I agree with the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who congratulated Dundee district council. My district council, Motherwell, and others have been struggling, despite the handicaps imposed upon them by legislation, to continue public sector housing. However, it is disingenuous of the hon. Gentleman to try to draw a comparison between those efforts and what has been done in the Bill. What this part of the Bill sets out is not a joint enterprise or a combination of private and public sectors working towards a common end for the benefit of both. Because of Government restrictions it is a zero sum game that one of them must lose. Under this part of the Bill, it is clear that it robs public sector Peter to make sure that private sector Paul is fattened up.
  The Minister did what he could to defend us and I compliment him. His detailed explanation was as clear as mud. The Minister is a master of obfuscation. It occurs to me that had he been a defence lawyer at the Nuremberg trials it would have been no wonder if Goering had won the order of Lenin. Despite the Minister's explanation, this part of the Bill can be put simply. It forces councils to get rid of houses that they do not want to abandon and, because of laws that councils do not support, there is a loss that the council cannot afford, and they must pay for the privilege into the bargain. All that is done on the basis of a valuation which is negative only because the Government have refused in the first place to give the council the money to carry out the repairs.
  When it is put as simply as that, a number of questions arise. Why should local authorities be so different from anyone else in the Government's view? The Government are always talking, not about the necessity to bear a loss, but about the need to make a profit. Who else would the Government force to sell off goods that they do not want to sell at a loss? Can we imagine them imposing that form of legislation on Tesco, Sainsbury or Wimpy? Can we imagine the Government leading with a slogan for private enterprise not of "make what profits you can", but, "Sell your goods on that basis not of 'buy one, get one free', but 'buy one, get one free and get a rebate thrown in'"?
  Why is it always the taxpayer who has to lose? Why will taxpayers lose over the steel privatisation when the industry is sold off? Why did they lose over the land sales in connection with the royal ordnance factories? Why will taxpayers and ratepayers lose now when it comes to local

  383
  authorities? The authorities have already been wrapped up in a legal straitjacket. Their funds have already been withdrawn and they have been prevented from raising additional funds to carry out repairs by the Government's rate capping policy. They have had inadequate remuneration.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that elected officials deserve proper remuneration, but there is a distinct difference between proper remuneration for our elected officials and greedy golden handshakes for those who abjectly failed to get elected in the first place and are being propped up by public money. All those problems have been inflicted on local councils and they are now being forced to sell at a loss.
  The policy affects not just old houses but new houses. A district council near me has been forced to sell four new houses which did not have negative values and were not in such dire conditions. It had to sell them before new tenants came in because, as soon as a new tenant stepped in, it would have had to sell the house in good repair at a loss to the council, only weeks after it had been completed. How much worse will it be when it comes to houses where there is double jeopardy, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said? It is not only unfair; it is a disincentive to build council houses in the first place.
  There must be a growing suspicion that this measure, like other measures in the Bill, is not simply a matter of clearing up. This is not a technical amendment. It is an integral part of the Government's policy of undermining the provision of public sector housing by penalising councils in every way possible and forcing them to sell. This measure, which adds insult to injury, forces them to sell at a loss. That policy is mistaken. The policy of undermining council house provision is not born of principle. It has been born of the Prime Minister's prejudice. It is not a policy shaped by concern. It has been marked rather by callousness. The measure is intended to add to the crippling financial burden of councils and to ensure that there will be little or no new public sector building. If the Government insist on maintaining that policy and if they reject the amendment tabled by Opposition Members, the public will draw their own conclusions.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is entirely fair that there should be payment by the council to relieve itself of a liability in those few cases where a negative valuation may be appropriate. I shall answer the general point raised by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) that there should be sufficient funds for capital investment in Scotland. Total gross public capital investment in Scottish housing has risen in real terms since 1979–80 from £718 million to £847 million, which is a marked contrast with the 8 per cent. per annum decrease over the preceding five years when the Labour Government were in power.
  I should like to give the House an example of how a negative valuation could work. If a house requires £6,000 worth of repair work to put it into a state of repair required by the landlord's common law and statutory repairing obligations, and if the district valuer took the view that the house would then be valued at £5,000, subject
  384
  to tenancy, the current market value for tenants' choice would be £5,000, minus £6,000. That is a negative valuation of £1,000
  Dr. Reid: I cannot understand why the Government are prepared to go through the rigmarole of valuations and assessments of repairs when a house is being sold off to the private sector, when, for years, councils such as Motherwell district council have been screaming at the Government for repairs. Tenants have to live in these houses needing repair, whether in the private or public sector. Why were the Government not channelling their efforts towards assessing those repairs and ensuring that the council had the money to carry them out?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I explained earlier that we have increased the sums available on housing. The housing revenue account last year was £411 million and this year is more than £441 million, so there has been a substantial increase.
  I wish to deal with the point that has been raised about the financial arrangements for local authorities. The authorities will not lose out. In those rare cases where the valuer decides that the valuation is negative, the authorities will make payments from their housing revenue capital accounts. The loan charges resulting will be taken into account in the determination of housing support grant. Therefore, where an authority is eligible to receive housing support grant, it will recoup its costs and, if it is just outside housing support grant, it could come back into it.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister has just referred to something called the housing revenue capital account. Does he mean the housing revenue account or the housing capital account?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The words that I used were "housing revenue capital accounts".
  Mr. Home Robertson rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question.
  I appreciate that some people take the view that authorities should not be expected to hand over their stock, but I hope that I have shown the House that it is in their interests, on occasions, not to keep what has become a liability. I imagine that negative valuations will be found occasionally and only in the very worst council housing. None the less—
  Mrs. Fyfe: The Minister said a moment ago that the capital cost will be made up through the housing support grant. What will he do in the case of the majority of Scottish councils which receive no housing support grant?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I said that, if they were just outside housing support grant, they might come back into it but, obviously, that depends on the circumstances. We anticipate that negative valuations will occur occasionally and only in the worst council housing. The amendment to provide for the possibility of negative valuation is both practical and sensible and I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister confirm that tenants will pay for this through the housing revenue account?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If authorities are in receipt of housing support grant, that will be taken into account in the allocations that are made.
  Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 143.

  Division No. 456]

  [8.58 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Allason, Rupert

  Gill, Christopher

  Amess, David

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Amos, Alan

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Arbuthnot, James

  Gorst, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Gow, Ian

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Atkinson, David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Baldry, Tony

  Gregory, Conal

  Batiste, Spencer

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Grist, Ian

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Ground, Patrick

  Benyon, W.

  Grylls, Michael

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hannam, John

  Boswell, Tim

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Bowis, John

  Harris, David

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Brazier, Julian

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Bright, Graham

  Hayes, Jerry

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Hayward, Robert

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Heddle, John

  Butler, Chris

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hill, James

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hind, Kenneth

  Cash, William

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Chope, Christopher

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Conway, Derek

  Hunter, Andrew

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Irvine, Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Jack, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Janman, Tim

  Cran, James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Day, Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Dicks, Terry

  Lang, Ian

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Dover, Den

  Lightbown, David

  Durant, Tony

  Lord, Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Evennett, David

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Fallon, Michael

  Mills, Iain

  Favell, Tony

  Moate, Roger

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Nelson, Anthony

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Neubert, Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Forth, Eric

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Franks, Cecil

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Freeman, Roger

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  French, Douglas

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Fry, Peter

  Page, Richard

  Gardiner, George

  Patnick, Irvine

  386

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Sumberg, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Summerson, Hugo

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Portillo, Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Price, Sir David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Raffan, Keith

  Tracey, Richard

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Tredinnick, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Trippier, David

  Redwood, John

  Trotter, Neville

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Riddick, Graham

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Walden, George

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Waller, Gary

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Ward, John

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Watts, John

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Whitney, Ray

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shersby, Michael

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wilshire, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wood, Timothy

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Yeo, Tim

  Squire, Robin

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Stern, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mr. David Maclean and

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Anderson, Donald

  Fearn, Ronald

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Ashton, Joe

  Flannery, Martin

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Flynn, Paul

  Battle, John

  Foster, Derek

  Beckett, Margaret

  Fyfe, Maria

  Beggs, Roy

  Galbraith, Sam

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Galloway, George

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Blunkett, David

  George, Bruce

  Boateng, Paul

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Boyes, Roland

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bradley, Keith

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Buchan, Norman

  Home Robertson, John

  Buckley, George J.

  Hood, Jimmy

  Caborn, Richard

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Howells, Geraint

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clay, Bob

  Ingram, Adam

  Clelland, David

  John, Brynmor

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Coleman, Donald

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Cousins, Jim

  Kilfedder, James

  Cummings, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lamond, James

  Darling, Alistair

  Lewis, Terry

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

  Litherland, Robert

  Dewar, Donald

  Livsey, Richard

  Dixon, Don

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dobson, Frank

  Loyden, Eddie

  Doran, Frank

  McAllion, John

  Douglas, Dick

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McCartney, Ian

  Eadie, Alexander

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  McFall, John

  387

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Mullin, Chris

  McKelvey, William

  Murphy, Paul

  McLeish, Henry

  Nellist, Dave

  Maclennan, Robert

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  McNamara, Kevin

  Patchett, Terry

  McTaggart, Bob

  Pike, Peter L.

  Madden, Max

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Prescott, John

  Marek, Dr John

  Redmond, Martin

  Martlew, Eric

  Reid, Dr John

  Maxton, John

  Robertson, George

  Meacher, Michael

  Rooker, Jeff

  Michael, Alun

  Salmond, Alex

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Short, Clare

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morley, Elliott

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Worthington, Tony

  Wall, Pat

  Wray, Jimmy

  Wallace, James

  Walley, Joan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Mrs. Win Golding and

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Mr. Frank Haynes.

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  "62A.—(1) In accordance with a scheme made by a local authority and approved by the Secretary of State under this section, the authority may make grants to or for the benefit of qualifying tenants of the authority with a view to assisting each person to whom or for whose benefit a grant is made to obtain accommodation otherwise than as a tenant of the authority either—

  (a) by acquiring an interest in a house; or

  (b) by carrying out works to a house to provide additional accommodation; or

  (c) by both of those means.

  (2) A scheme under this section shall contain such provisions as the local authority considers appropriate together with any which the Secretary of State may require as a condition of his approval and, without prejudice to the generality, a scheme may include provisions specifying, or providing for the determination of—

  (a) the persons who are qualifying tenants for the purposes of the scheme;

  (b) the interests which qualifying tenants may be assisted to acquire;

  (c) the works for the carrying out of which grants may be made;

  (d) the circumstances in which a grant may be made for the benefit of a qualifying tenant;

  (e)the amount of the grant which may be made in any particular case and the terms on which it may be made;

  (f)the limits on the total number and amount of grants which may be made; and

  (g) the period within which the scheme is to apply.

  (3) The Secretary of State may approve a scheme made by a local authority under this section with or without conditions and, where a scheme has been approved, the authority shall take such steps as it considers appropriate to bring the scheme to the attention of persons likely to be able to benefit from it and shall take such other steps (if any) as the Secretary of State may direct in any particular case to secure publicity for the scheme.

  (4) The Secretary of State may revoke an approval of a scheme under this section by a notice given to the local authority concerned; and where such a notice is given, the revocation shall not affect the operation of the scheme in relation to any grants made or agreed before the date of the notice.

  (5) Where a scheme made by a local authority under this section has been approved, a person dealing with the authority shall not be concerned to see or enquire whether the terms of the scheme have been or are being complied with; and any failure to comply with the terms of a scheme shall not invalidate any grant purporting to he made in accordance with the scheme unless the person to whom the grant is made has actual notice of the failure.

  (6) In this section, "local authority" and "house" have respectively the meanings assigned to those expressions by section 338(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987."

  Read a Second time.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), in line 41, leave out from 'authority' to 'enquire' in line 42 and insert 'may'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments to the Lords amendment:

  (b) in line 43, leave out 'shall not' and insert 'may'.

  (c) in line 45, leave out from 'scheme' to end of line 46.

  Question accordingly agreed to. [Special entry.]

New Clause

  SCHEMES FOR PAYMENTS TO ASSIST LOCAL AUTHORITY TENANTS TO OBTAIN OTHER ACCOMMODATION
  Lords amendment: No. 46, after clause 62, insert the following new clause—
  (d)in line 49, at end insert—
  (7) Where the Secretary of State gives approval to a scheme under this section, he shall increase the capital allocation of the local authority concerned by an amount which is sufficient to ensure the viability of the scheme.'.
  Lords amendment No. 102.
  I should inform the House that Lords amendment No. 46 involves privilege.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Amendment (a) would provide for schemes for payment to local authority tenants to help

  389
  them to obtain alternative accommodation. I stress that we in the Opposition have always supported the principle of help for first-time home buyers. Our record on that is in stark contrast to that of the Conservative party, which is shoving up mortgage rates for all that it is worth—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult for hon. Members who are in the Chamber to hear what is being said. [Interruption.] Order. I ask hon. Members who are not listening to the debate to carry on their conversations elsewhere.
  Mr. Home Robertson: When we have a Scottish Assembly in Scotland to debate Scottish affairs, we shall not have the problem of extraneous people hanging around cluttering up our debates.
  We have no objection to the underlying principle of the scheme, but I should like to talk about some detailed points. I shall not spend time on amendments (a) and (b) because we are short of time. I shall concentrate on amendment (d), which would require the Secretary of State to fund such a scheme separately and directly.
  We are becoming accustomed to the dishonest claims of Ministers in this Administration. I have no doubt that the Government will go around saying that local authorities should implement the scheme and blaming them if they do not. Expectations will be raised as a result of Government statements in connection with the amendment and, as usual, local authorities will be left to face the music.
  Local authorities in Scotland have more than enough obligations already to be met from hopelessly inadequate resources and they might have good reasons for deciding not to implement the scheme. I am happy enough that such incentives should be set up, but it is the Government who are proposing the scheme and who will undoubtedly claim credit for it, so I respectfully suggest to the Minister that, just for once, the Government should put their money where their mouth is and accept amendment (d), which would ensure that the Scottish Office funds such schemes separately from the rest of local authority housing finance.
  Mr. Doran: I am a wee bit less sanguine and quite a bit more concerned about the provision than my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). The debate that we have just had on the negative value of council houses could be equally applied to this debate. Perhaps the Minister will say a wee bit more about what is intended, because it appears that what is being established is a scheme that would require local authorities to pay from either the capital or revenue account those tenants who wish or who are encouraged to be removed from local authority houses. We need to know in what circumstances it is envisaged that schemes would be approved. For example, will schemes be approved for the sole purpose of transferring those houses to the private sector? We should like the Minister to answer such questions.
  I am extremely concerned about subsection (5) of the new clause. A scheme will be made by a public authority, that is the local authority, and approved by a public official, that is the Secretary of State for Scotland, but subsection (5) seems to rule out any challenge to the operation of the scheme. That strikes me as intolerable, particularly when we are talking about substantial sums of public money.
  9.15 pm
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have been asked whether there are resources for such schemes. Local authorities making payments to tenants will be required to find the resources from within their housing revenue account capital allocations for the year in which payments are made. The logic is simple. The payments are made, in effect, to release accommodation for letting as an alternative to new build. Such payments are therefore instead of direct capital expenditure. Local authorities have discretion on how to use capital consents issued to them under section 94 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
  Among the factors taken into account in the allocation of resources will continue to be the levels of homelessness and the demand for accommodation locally, as shown, for example, by homelessness returns and the size of the local authority waiting lists. Payments made by authorities from their capital allocations will as usual be taken into account in the calculation of housing support grant.
  Our reason for rejecting the amendment is that, while local authorities will not be given a specific allocation earmarked for the purpose of giving cash incentives to tenants, powers in the new clause will enable them to use the resources available more effectively in providing housing accommodation in their areas. For example, instead of building one new house, they might be able at the same cost to encourage tenants to vacate three to five houses, which could assist their provision for the homeless.
  Let me further explain the positive approach. New clause 62 and the consequential drafting amendment to the title will give local authorities, with the consent of the Secretary of State, specific powers to make payments to their tenants to help them to obtain other accommodation. I hope and believe that the clause will be welcomed by the House, as it was in the other place. It is an enabling provision designed to allow local authorities to draw up schemes that will require the Secretary of State's approval, under which they will be able to offer payment to tenants to move out of their council houses. Such payments would be used, for example, as deposits on the purchase of houses in the private sector. That will leave council accommodation vacant, which will then be available for letting to, for example, homeless families or persons on the waiting list.
  I stress that the new clause would not oblige local authorities to offer cash incentive payments; nor would it give tenants a right to a payment. I also stress that no tenants will be forced to move. Local authorities will be able to come to the Secretary of State seeking approval for schemes for making such payments. The nature and extent of cash incentive schemes will be for local authorities themselves to devise.
  Mr. Home Robertson: As usual, the buck stops with the local authorities. The Minister has tried to develop a wonderfully circuitous argument to explain how such a scheme could be funded. The fact is that the Government are once again raising hopes among some people who will no doubt make approaches to their local authorities on the strength of publicity about the provision, but the Government are not prepared to put up the finances that will be necessary to implement it. It has done no harm to expose that. We are not opposed to the principle of such payments, but we feel that the Government should for

  391
  once be honest and pay for the schemes that they are dreaming up. Having made that point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
  Question put and agreed to.

Clause 63

  ABOLITION AND CAPITALISATION OF CERTAIN SUBSIDIES AND CONTRIBUTIONS
  Lords amendment: No. 47, in page 38, line 25, leave out "instalments" and insert "payments"
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 48.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The amendment simply achieves consistency with the other references to the "payments". Amendment No. 48 is purely drafting.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 48 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 49, in page 39, line 21, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
  "(8) Paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 16 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (duty of local authority to credit slum clearance subsidy to slum clearance revenue account) shall cease to have effect on 1st April 1989."
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 92 and 100.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Under paragraph 1(b) of schedule 16 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, local authorities are required to credit to their slum clearance revenue account payments of slum clearance subsidy. However, under the provisions of this clause the only payments to be made to local authorities in respect of expenditure on slum clearance on or after 1 April 1989 will be capital payments made under subsection (3). Slum clearance subsidy itself will disappear. Such capital payments will be credited to the appropriate capital account and not to a revenue account.
  Lords amendment No. 49 therefore replaces the existing subsection (8) with a more definite provision to remove the duty on local authorities to credit subsidy payments to the slum clearance revenue account with effect from 1 April 1989. Lords amendment No. 100 adds paragraph 1(b) of schedule 16 to the repeal schedule. The repeal will take effect from 1 April 1989. Lords amendment No. 92 similarly amends section 207 of the 1987 Act to import the relevant parts of section 200, which is being repealed, explicitly into section 207. In summary, the points are therefore technical ones, consequential on the rest of the clause.
  I understand that COSLA welcomes the change because it gives local authorities more flexibility.
  Question put and agreed to.

Clause 66

  RENT OFFICERS: ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS RELATING TO HOUSING BENEFIT ETC
  Lords amendment: No. 50, in page 40, line 5, after "instrument" insert
  "which, except in the case of the first order to be made, shall be"
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 51.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: When the Bill left this House for another place, clause 66 provided that the orders to specify the functions of rent officers in relation to housing benefit subsidy were to be subject to negative resolution of either House of Parliament. However, the first order, which will set out in detail how rent officers will carry out their new role, seems to us to warrant a debate in this House. Hon. Members clearly have a major interest in the details of the provisions. Therefore, the Government have decided that the first order should be subject to affirmative resolution. Any subsequent order will, however, be subject to negative resolution.
  As hon. Members are aware, the new role of the rent officer has been the subject of consideration by working parties comprising Government Departments, local authority associations and rent officers. The working parties have completed their deliberations and the Government are currently examining what they have proposed. The House will have an opportunity to discuss the detail of the new arrangements when we debate the first order within the next few months.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I wish that that meant something. Clause 66 is an extremely offensive and alarming provision and we shall be able to say something about the principle behind it when we discuss the next group of amendments.
  The Minister has represented as a concession the fact that the first order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of the House. That still means that the restrictions will apply to housing benefit whether anyone likes it or not because the affirmative resolution does not provide for proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Minister said that this matter should be debated in the House, but I think that it should be debated in Scotland. I believe that the Scottish people would deliver the same verdict on this provision as they have delivered on the Government repeatedly in the past.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 51 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 52, in page 40, line 10, at end insert—
  "( ) At the end of section 21(6) of the Social Security Act 1986 (regulations prescribing maximum family credit and maximum housing benefit) there shall be added the words 'and regulations prescribing the appropriate maximum housing benefit may provide for benefit to be limited by reference to determinations made by rent officers in exercise of functions confermed under section 66 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988'."
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 53 and 54.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Lords amendment No. 52 brings the Scottish Bill into line with the English one. This is necessary since the housing benefit system with which the rent officers will become involved through clause 66, covers the whole of Great Britain.
  The amendment allows my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to take into account the determinations made by rent officers under clause 66 if he makes regulations limiting the maximum amount of housing benefit that may be paid in certain circumstances. That is designed to avoid obtaining unnecessarily the same information twice which would be wasteful and lead to inconsistency. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not have the power to use the information of determinations by rent officers, he would have to obtain the same information from a different source. Lords amendments Nos. 53 and 54 are simply consequential drafting provisions.
  Mr. Speaker: I call Lord Home Robertson.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Not yet, Mr. Speaker, but hope springs eternal.
  The amendments establish a link between clause 66 of this Bill and the Social Security Act 1986 to provide for the limitation of housing benefit paid to claimants living in accommodation which Tory Ministers think is too good for them. We debated this point at length in Committee. As we now know, the carve-up of the housing benefits system in April has led to drastic cuts in support for hundreds of thousands of Scots.
  About 650,000 claimants in Scotland are worse off as a result of the changes imposed by the Government in April and that includes about 120,000 claimants whose housing benefit has been stopped altogether. The transitional relief system is, frankly, little better than a fig leaf. Where it has led to any payments, it has not been much help to the claimants.
  We all have constituency experience of the hardship caused by the changes. As a direct consequence of the housing benefit changes, we now have unprecedented levels of rent arrears throughout Scotland. I am sure that all of us have come across cases in our constituencies of elderly people who find themselves in debt for the first time in their lives because of the cuts in their housing benefit. Their family benefit can simply no longer cover their obligation to pay rent on time. That is causing terrible distress to many people.
  On top of that, clause 66 means that a householder claiming housing benefit who happens to live in an up-market area or in a house deemed to be bigger than is absolutely necessary for the tenant, will have housing benefit entitlement cut. That is a nauseating provision designed to force the poor people of Scotland into ghettos.
  I invite the Minister to take us through the sequence of events which might occur if a family in his home neighbourhood of north Berwick in my constituency was to find itself in this trap. If a tenant living in a nice house in that neighbourhood which happens to have one room more than is strictly speaking necessary for the family's needs were to lose his job, become ill and have to claim housing benefit, will the Minister acknowledge that in due course under this clause the claimant would find his level of benefit would be restricted and that he and his family
  394
  would in due course be forced out of the home to look for cheaper or smaller accommodation, which is unlikely to be readily available in the same neighbourhood?
  That is an appalling scenario, but that is what has been built up by the Government arising from this shameful clause and its connection to the Social Security Act 1986. We are violently opposed to that aspect of the legislation and we intend to vote against Lords amendment No. 52.
  Mr. McAllion: Obviously we are dealing with housing benefit here. I do not think that we could be dealing with a more controversial subject now. A tremendous amount of heartache has been caused in Scotland, particularly to people on low incomes, as a result of the changes in housing benefit introduced in April.
  I want to refer to two short examples of this hardship, gained from people who came to my surgery and drew my attention to their experience of what happened to them under the Government's transitional protection arrangements. The first example is of a lady who sent her application off in July and was told that if she had not heard within six weeks, she should give the transitional payment unit in Glasgow a phone call. She did that and was told that they were sorry and if she phoned back in two weeks they would let her know then. She called back in two weeks and was told that everything was held up because of the postal strike. She was told to wait until the strike was over and call back then. She called back last week and was told by a very harassed girl in the office that everything was in chaos. She was told, "We cannot find your letter. You need to re-apply because we don't know what has happened to your application and we don't know what you are entitled to." It is time something was done about the way in which the transitional payments unit in Glasgow is operating the housing benefit transitional protection payments. The unit simply is not working. Somebody somewhere in the Government will have to waken up to that reality and start to do something about it.
  9.30 pm
  In another case a man was told that if he lost in excess of £2·50 a week he would be eligible to apply for transitional protection. He did so, but after five or six months, during which time his applications was lost in the convolutions of the bureaucratic machinery that has been set up, he was sent a notice to say that he had been awarded transitional protection payments of 9p a week and that if he sent a stamped addressed envelope the payment would be sent to him. That is the sort of nonsense that is affecting ordinary people with low incomes, leading them directly into massive debt and leading councils into massive rent arrears. It is time that the Government properly funded the housing benefit system in Scotland.
  The Minister mentioned that working parties have been set up with representatives from the Government, local authority associations and rent officers. May we have more information on the kind of recommendations that those working parties are likely to come up with? I want to know exactly how the rent officers will assess whether a rent is unreasonable for the purposes of housing benefit. What criteria will rent officers be expected to use in making such assessments?
  For example, we are told that rent officers are supposed to use their professional judgment. However, since they have never before been required to consider this area and

  395
  have no direct experience of what is required from them, I do not see how they can. Their professional judgment has never before required them to consider the specific problem of whether people should be receiving housing benefit for the particular house in which they happen to live.
  We are told that rent officers are to be guided by the need to protect public funds. Are they also to be guided by the principle that the tenant's right to live in peace should be protected, or is that principle to be thrown out of the window for the sake of a miserable saving for the public purse so that the Chancellor can come here and boast about how the public sector borrowing requirement is falling year upon year, when it is doing so upon the back of the misery inflicted upon many poor families in Britain?
  The Secretary of State for Scotland will be issuing guidance. As I understand it, one of the first things that the rent officers will be asked to do is to discover the address of a person who applies for housing benefit. Once they have that, they can judge what kind of area that house is in. If it is a good area of a town, they might decide that an unemployed person has no right to be living there and would be far better off in a less desirable area. Is that one of the professional judgments that rent officers will have to make?
  What about people who, through no fault of their own, find that they have fallen on bad times? A husband might die or find himself out of work. Could such a family then be judged to be living in the wrong area? Will a wife who is left with the children have to get out of her house and move to a less desirable part of town as a result of clause 66? The Minister will have to answer those questions.
  We are also told that the rent officers will have to consider details of the occupants of a property and the number of rooms in each house. Again, we suggest that a judgment will be made on whether a person applying for housing benefit has a right to stay in a house with more than one bedroom if he is the only person living there. Will a widow or widower living in the house that previously housed their family be required to get out if the rent officer decides that housing benefit cannot be paid because he or she is over-accommodated in the house?
  The Minister cannot simply let this slip through as some kind of technical link between the Housing (Scotland) Bill and the Social Security Act 1986. These are serious matters which frighten many people in Scotland. The Minister has a responsibility to come to the Dispatch Box and say how the clause will operate in the kind of cases that I have outlined, and that he too is anxious about the transitional payment unit's failure to operate in Scotland and the Government's bureaucratic incompetence which has led to their failure to assist people who find themselves in serious debt.
  Mr. Bill Walker: This amendment deals with the maximum housing benefit that can be provided, and comments have been made about the problems that have arisen resulting from transitional payments. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members have had to deal with constituents who have experienced difficulties as a result of the changes that occurred, but it is not all doom and gloom.
  I took up a number of cases on behalf of my own constituents. One that particularly springs to mind
  396
  concerns a man living with his common law wife and seven children who had been receiving more than £70 per week housing benefit. Changes were made and he found himself in some difficulty. The House will be interested to learn that under the transitional arrangements, that figure has now been paid in full—including the arrears that accrued during the weeks when there was some doubt about his payments. The fact is that the regulations that operated during the transitional period worked in my constituency. I say to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) that my experience is not the same as his and that the people who merit proper housing benefit are receiving it.
  We regularly hear about the failure of the housing coffers to be sustained by the public purse, yet right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches regularly overlook the massive sums of public money that go into the housing coffers every week directly through housing benefit provisions, including the transitional arrangements operating at the moment. The sum involved runs into many millions of pounds. That has been the most massive increase of all in housing support to those in need.
  I am not arguing that those who are in need should not receive housing benefit, because I believe that they should. One of the ways in which the public purse can assist people is by making sure that they may have the funds that allow them to live in proper homes. Housing benefit has worked and it will continue to work under this amendment. Much of the scaremongering we hear from the Opposition Benches is just that—scaremongering.
  Dr. Reid: I hope that the Minister will give his attention to some of the very serious comments made from these Benches. He has been amazing in his resilience to the points that have been made; it has been like grappling with a wet Kleenex. I hope that on this occasion he will give specific answers to questions asked of him by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion).
  It is no use the Minister withdrawing into the fantasy world that he created when giving his answers in our debates on the last few amendments—the fantasy world of the benevolent landlord, which, like military intelligence, is a contradiction in terms. One cannot withdraw into a fantasy world if one is living, perhaps with a family, in a council house which is associated with one's past—perhaps with one's deceased spouse, with one's children, and with the good times—and where one's residence there is dependent upon housing benefit.
  Enough difficulties have already been caused by existing housing benefit legislation, not only in itself but in respect of rent arrears. I can tell the Minister that in my own area, the arrears for Motherwell district council at the start of the financial year 1987–88 totalled just over £1 million. By July they had risen to £1·8 million. There can be no substantial reason for that increase other than the effect of housing benefit cuts. It represents an increase of more than 80 per cent. in rent arrears—more than £750,000 lost by the council. That is because the number of beneficiaries has been reduced by 3,000. Their benefit has not just been reduced—they have been taken off benefit altogether.
  Between April and July 1987, benefit was being paid to the tune of £6,593,000. In the period from April to July 1988, the figure was only £5,441,000, which is a reduction of more than £1,100,000 for that quarter; a yearly equivalent of £4,607,000. That is the loss in benefits to a

  397
  constituency such as mine, which has among the highest public sector housing populations, if not the highest, in Scotland.
  The Minister must answer the questions that have been put to him. I shall not burden him with all the cases that have come to my surgery, because time moves on. I shall give him just one example. It concerns not a young person but an 83-year-old man, who is not able-bodied. He has suffered from pneumoconiosis and he still does. The Minister will be aware that pneumoconiosis is not a medical characteristic of an idle life. It is not a sign of a life spent in a billiard room or in a bar; it is a sign of a life spent in the depths and the darkness of a pit, creating value by extracting coal. He was not someone who, when war came, asked what his country could do for him, or even what he could do for his country—he went out and did it. Now, at the age of 83 and crippled with that disease, his rent is raised from 72p to £27 a fortnight. He is entitled to ask what his country will do for him. He has asked, but he has received no reply. I hope that tonight he will receive a specific and sound reply that will at least give him some hope for the remaining years of his life.
  Mrs. Fyfe: The electorate of Tayside, North certainly had negative value when they elected their Member of Parliament. It is true that housing benefit involves massive sums, but that is because people are out of work. They would rather be in employment than be unemployed and receiving housing benefit.
  For the sake of brevity, I shall cite only one example of the effect of the limit on housing benefit. We have already discussed the problem faced by widows, but there is also the problem faced by women who have been deserted by their husbands. They might be left in houses that the Government consider to be too good or too big, but why should they have to leave them and their neighbourhoods, give up their friends and change their children's schools? They might have made many improvements to their houses, at great cost to themselves. Why should they hand them over with no return just because some Conservative politician thinks that they are too good or too big? The Government have failed to justify this legislation and it will not be welcome in Scotland.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) asked about the transitional payments unit and how quickly applications were processed. I understand that the unit has received about 352,000 applications of which 218,000 have been processed, with 116,000 of them being successful. By the end of the week about 108,000 payments will have been made.
  The Government have made it clear, at all stages, that housing benefit should be available to qualifying tenants paying rents at the level determined by the markets. Rent officers will have the task of verifying that the rent being paid by a private tenant who claims housing benefit is no higher than the market level. In cases where the rent officer judges the rent to be above the market level, he will assess the reasonable market rent for the property, and housing benefit subsidy will be available up to the level of that assessment. The local authority can pay benefit above that level if it chooses, but it will lose subsidy on the excess.
  The housing benefit system is not designed to enable claimants to occupy, at public expense, the sort of accommodation that the vast majority of people could not
  398
  reasonably expect to afford out of their own resources. That is why we made clear, in setting out our proposals on the housing benefit implications of deregulation, our intention to introduce in due course a limit on housing benefit itself—not just on housing benefit subsidy—in cases where a claimant is occupying accommodation that is at the top end of the market. We also indicated that we should consider further restrictions on benefit should that prove necessary to prevent abuse of the housing benefit system.
  Accordingly, the amendments to clause 66 provide an enabling power for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to make regulations requiring housing benefit to be restricted by reference to rent officers' determinations. As hon. Members know, working parties involving the local authority associations, the Institute of Rent Officers and Government Departments, including the Scottish Office, are currently considering how the system will work. They are paying particular attention to the problem of identifying what houses are over-luxurious, but they have not yet reached a conclusion. When they do, hon. Members will have an opportunity to debate the outcome.
  Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 136.

  Division No. 457]

  [9.44 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Cran, James

  Allason, Rupert

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Amess, David

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Amos, Alan

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Day, Stephen

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dicks, Terry

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dover, Den

  Atkinson, David

  Durant, Tony

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evennett, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Fallon, Michael

  Benyon, W.

  Favell, Tony

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Forth, Eric

  Boswell, Tim

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bottomley, Peter

  Freeman, Roger

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  French, Douglas

  Bowis, John

  Fry, Peter

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Gardiner, George

  Brazier, Julian

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bright, Graham

  Gill, Christopher

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gorst, John

  Burt, Alistair

  Gow, Ian

  Butler, Chris

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gregory, Conal

  Cash, William

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Grist, Ian

  Chapman, Sydney

  Ground, Patrick

  Chope, Christopher

  Grylls, Michael

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Conway, Derek

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Couchman, James

  Hannam, John

  399

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Redwood, John

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Harris, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Hayes, Jerry

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hayward, Robert

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Heddle, John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Hill, James

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Shersby, Michael

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Squire, Robin

  Irvine, Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Jack, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Janman, Tim

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Sumberg, David

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Key, Robert

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Lang, Ian

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Lightbown, David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Lord, Michael

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tracey, Richard

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Tredinnick, David

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Trippier, David

  Mills, Iain

  Trotter, Neville

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Moate, Roger

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Walden, George

  Neubert, Michael

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Waller, Gary

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Ward, John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Watts, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Whitney, Ray

  Page, Richard

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Wilshire, David

  Pawsey, James

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wood, Timothy

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Yeo, Tim

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Portillo, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Raffan, Keith

  Mr. David Maclean, and

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Mr. Stephen Dorrrel.

  Rathbone, Tim

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Anderson, Donald

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Clay, Bob

  Ashton, Joe

  Clelland, David

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Battle, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Beckett, Margaret

  Coleman, Donald

  Beggs, Roy

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cousins, Jim

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cummings, John

  Blunkett, David

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Boateng, Paul

  Darling, Alistair

  Boyes, Roland

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradley, Keith

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dewar, Donald

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Dixon, Don

  Buchan, Norman

  Dobson, Frank

  Buckley, George J.

  Doran, Frank

  Caborn, Richard

  Douglas, Dick

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  400

  Eadie, Alexander

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  McWilliam, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Madden, Max

  Fearn, Ronald

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Marek, Dr John

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Martlew, Eric

  Flannery, Martin

  Maxton, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Meacher, Michael

  Foster, Derek

  Michael, Alun

  Foulkes, George

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Galloway, George

  Morgan, Rhodri

  George, Bruce

  Morley, Elliott

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mullin, Chris

  Grocott, Bruce

  Murphy, Paul

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Nellist, Dave

  Hinchliffe, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Patchett, Terry

  Home Robertson, John

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hood, Jimmy

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Redmond, Martin

  Howells, Geraint

  Reid, Dr John

  Hoyle, Doug

  Robertson, George

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Salmond, Alex

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Ingram, Adam

  Short, Clare

  John, Brynmor

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Kilfedder, James

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Lamond, James

  Wall, Pat

  Lewis, Terry

  Wallace, James

  Litherland, Robert

  Walley, Joan

  Livsey, Richard

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  McAllion, John

  Winnick, David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  McCartney, Ian

  Worthington, Tony

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Wray, Jimmy

  McFall, John

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McKelvey, William

  Mrs. Llin Golding and

  McLeish, Henry

  Mr. Frank Haynes.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 53 to 57 agreed to.

Clause 70

  SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
  Lords amendment: No. 58, in page 41, line 10, after "force" insert
  "as follows—

  (a) section 65 and section 68 (so far as relating to Schedule 7) and this section and that Schedule, shall come into force on the day this Act is passed;

  (b) sections 33 to 37, 62, 63, and 67 and section 68 (so far as relating to Schedule 8 and to the entries in Schedule 10 in respect of—

  (i) sections 62(11) to (13), 151, 200, 254, 255, 296 and 297 of; and

  (ii) provisions of Schedules 13 and 14 to,

  the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987), and Schedule 8 and, in Schedule 10, those entries shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;

  (c) section 68 (so far as relating to the entry in Schedule 10 relating to paragraph (1)(b) of Schedule 16 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987) and that entry shall come into force on 1st April 1989;

  (d) the remaining provisions shall come into force."

  Read a Second time.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), in subsection (a), leave out 'section 65 and'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this we may consider amendments (b) to (c) and Government amendment (d) to the Lords amendment.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Amendment (a) would retain the requirement for a statutory instrument on rent limitation for the SSHA, new towns and housing associations, which would be removed automatically and immediately, without further consultation or debate, if the Lords amendment were implemented.
  Amendment (b) would similarly provide for further consultation about and consideration of the abolition of the cost floor for sales of councils houses, and would enable us to think about its impact on local authorities and their tenants. Under the Lords amendment it would be implemented automatically only two months after the Bill came into effect.
  Amendment (c) would require a statutory instrument on the sales of new town housing land, which I know is a matter of particular concern to my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram).
  These are all contentious issues and require proper consideration and consultation with the people who will be affected before the details of the implementation are finalised. The Bill originally provided for such consideration before regulations are made and Lords amendment No. 58 would provide a short cut for Ministers. They should not he allowed to get away with that, and the House should insist on being allowed to return to these matters and to give full consideration to the regulations before they come into effect.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Lords Amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Maclean.]
  Lords amendments again considered.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: At present and because of unforeseen consequences of amending the definition of housing associations for the purpose of part VI of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984, the SSHA, development corporations and co-operative housing associations are included within the scope of part VI of that Act. This means that, unintentionally, these bodies can have their rents determined and registered by the rent officer. Of course, this is nonsensical and has never happened. Having seen this mistake, we naturally want to correct it at the first available opportunity and have thus included clause 65 and an early commencement date—the day the Act is passed. That deals with amendment (a).
  I cannot accept amendment (b) and can find no good reason why the provisions in clause 62 should not be commenced two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
  Since the provisions in clause 62 were tabled by amendment on Report, they have been the subject of much debate in this House and in another place. I have listened with interest to what the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has said but cannot accept the points that he makes.
  402
  In connection with amendment (c), despite misgivings expressed earlier in the House, the matter was not challenged in another place and I find it surprising that the hon. Member for East Lothian now returns to the provision in such an obscure way. I recommend that amendment (c) be rejected.
  I shall now deal briefly with the amendment to Lords amendment No. 58 in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Under the provisions of clause 63 some Exchequer subsidies are terminated on 1 April 1989. Because of a drafting error, the date of the consequential repeal of the existing powers is specified in paragraph (b) as being two months after the date of Royal Assent.
  This error, if uncorrected, would leave a gap of about three months between the repeals and the coming into force of the new provisions on 1 April 1989. There would therefore be no legal right for a local authority to receive, or for the Government to pay, the grants and subsidies covered by these repealed provisions during that period. The amendment to Lords amendment No. 58 removes from paragraph (b) the references to existing provisions, leaving them to be repealed by a commencement order under subsection (2)(d) on 1 April 1989.
  Lords Amendment No. 58 sets out on the face of the Bill commencement dates for certain of its provisions. An order will shortly be prepared setting out the commencement dates for the other provisions of the Bill. Hon. Members may find it helpful if I set our intentions out in broad terms. Scottish Homes will come into operation on 1 April 1989, but it will be necessary to bring some provisions relating to it in part I and the schedules into effect earlier, so that it can prepare itself for full-scale operation. The provisions relating to the private rented sector in part II and the related schedules will come into effect early in the new year. Finally, part III of the Bill relating to tenants' choice will come into effect on 1 April next year.
  Mr. Adam Ingram: I should like to ask the Minister for some assurances on clause 67. Will he give us an assurance that there will be no disposal of land or houses on land within the Scottish new towns before the full consultation process has been gone through? I understand that Lords amendment No. 58 would take away one aspect of the process by which there would be discussion in the House. It appears that two months after the Bill becomes an Act clause 67 could be applied in full.
  The House should be aware that within the last four weeks the Government have twice called off the consultation document on the wind-up of the new towns. They did so without any consultation with the district councils or even with the development corporation. They simply said that they wanted those documents produced and in the hands of the public, and then called off the consultations at the last moment.
  People in the new towns are worried that, as a result of Lords amendment No. 58, shortly after the Bill becomes an Act, the Government will start disposing of land and, more importantly, the houses on that land. Will there be full consultation? Will that consultation paper, when it is produced, be subject to the full rigours of the normal consultation period, and will the Minister give his assurance that there will be no implementation of the intention to wind up the new towns until that process has been gone through?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The short answer to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) is yes. I am sitting next to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is responsible for new towns, and I can say that the consultation document will be brought forward soon.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I have received so much satisfaction from hearing the Minister explain that these amendments arise out of a cock-up by the Scottish Office that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment (d) to the Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 59 and 60 agreed to. [Special entry.]

Schedule 2
  AMENDMENTS CONSEQUENTIAL ON ESTABLISHING OF SCOTTISH HOMES AND ABOLITION OF SSHA
  Lords amendment: No. 61, in page 48, line 35, at end insert—
  AMENDMENTS CONSEQUENTIAL ON ESTABLISHING OF SCOTTISH HOMES AND ABOLITION OF SSHA

    'Local Government Act 1988
    16. In section 1(1)—

    (a) after paragraph (j) there shall be inserted the word "and",

    (b) paragraph (1) and the word "and" immediately preceding it shall cease to have effect.

    17. In Schedule 2, the words "The Scottish Special Housing Association" shall be omitted.'
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 101.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: These amendments will ensure that Scottish Homes does not inherit the application to the SSHA of the wider competition requirements to be introduced in the course of 1989 by the Local Government Act 1988. The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) raised this point with me when we debated the matter last summer.
    The competition requirements are intended primarily for local authorities but apply to some bodies which are very similar to local authorities, as the SSHA is at present. They do not apply to the Scottish Development Agency or the HIDB and they are inappropriate to a wide-ranging body like Scottish Homes. This amendment will simply put Scottish Homes on the same footing as the SDA in this matter.
    Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister has just confirmed that there is one law for a Tory quango and another for elected local authorities. The latter are forced to go through the farce of the competitive tendering process under the privatisation provisions of the Local Government Act 1988, but this Tory-inspired and principally Tory-manned quango is being specifically excluded from the duty to put contracts out to competitive tendering. If it is so good for a large authority to be compelled to go in for competitive tendering, why should Scottish Homes not also be required to carry out that process? This exposes the hypocrisy of the competitive tendering scheme in the public sector, and it has done no harm to draw attention to the Government's conduct in this connection.
    Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 3

  SCOTTISH HOMES: AMENDMENTS OF HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1985
  Lords amendment No. 62 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 63, in page 50, line 48, leave out "15(3)" and insert "15–

  (a) in subsection (2) at the end there shall be added the following paragraph—

  "(f) in the case of housing associations registered in the register maintained by Scottish Homes, payments made or benefits granted by such an association with the approval of Scottish Homes (which approval may be given only in relation to a class or classes of case)."

  (b) in subsection (3)".

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  This concerns a very important matter and one to which we have given much consideration—the granting of tenancies and other benefits to those involved in the running of housing associations or their close relatives.
  Amendment No. 63 gives Scottish Homes the power to define classes of case in which the granting of benefits will be allowed. As such, existing controls will be relaxed but abuse of the system will not be allowed to creep in. We believe that we are getting the balance right and that is very important.
  This amendment will allow Scottish Homes to introduce exceptions to the general prohibition against benefits, which are tailored to particular circumstances as they emerge. By confining this power to classes of case, rather than applying it to individual cases, we are ensuring the even-handed treatment of those closely involved in the running and decision-making of individual housing associations.
  This subject has concerned all parties in this House and I am very pleased that we have been able to meet the concern which has been expressed. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations wrote to say that it is grateful for the efforts taken to achieve this necessary and important change.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I acknowledge this important concession to committee members, office bearers and staff of housing associations. The matter has been raised repeatedly over the years by the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and by a number of hon. Members in Committee. I cited the case of one of my constituents who has two disabled sons and serves on the committee of a specialist housing association for disabled people. Because of her membership of that committee, her sons have hitherto been prevented from becoming tenants of that housing association. It has been absurd and unfair that membership of such committees should prevent members of such families from becoming tenants of housing associations. That has been demanded over a long period. I welcome the fact that the Government have conceded this significant point. Perhaps the Minister can tell us when he expects that the provisions will be implemented.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to give him the precise date, but I should think that it will be extremely quickly.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Rating and Valuation
10.12 pm
Mr. John Maxton: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Abolition of Domestic Rates (Domestic and Part Residential Subjects) (Scotland) Regulations 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 1477), dated 22nd August 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th August, be annulled.
Despite the fact that we have lost some time for these regulations, I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have no intention of speaking at the speed at which you dealt with the final Lords amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
We have just considered what can now rightly be called the Michael Ancram Benefit Bill, set up to give him a job in his retirement from Parliament. In dealing with poll tax regulations, we now move to the measure that led to that gentleman's demise from the House. The only shame about that is that he is not here to apologise for the promises that he made about the poll tax, which are now being broken by the Government.
None of the six sets of regulations is of itself of great importance. Some of them give minor concessions to demands that the Opposition, local authorities in Scotland and COSLA have been making for some time. We have made it clear from the beginning that whenever we have an opportunity to debate the obscenities of the poll tax, we shall take it.
It is absurd that with only five months to go before the poll tax is imposed on 1 April 1989 we are still debating regulations that will bring the Act into force. When the Government introduced the commencement order for the Abolition of Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 over a year ago, they announced their intention to have, with the exception of the rebate scheme, all the regulations clear of the consultation process by the end of 1987. They said that the regulations would be laid and debated long before now. The report of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, which the Government commissioned, made it clear that if the timetable was not adhered to—it wanted a tighter timetable than that which the Government proposed—local authorities would be in considerable trouble in implementing the poll tax efficiently by April 1989. Ten months have passed and the tax will come into force in five months' time, and the process is still not complete.
Even the regulations that we are discussing will not complete the process. Several important issues are still being discussed with COSLA and local authorities in Scotland. Other regulations have been discussed, but they have not yet been laid before the House. They include the exemption from poll tax of care workers in residential homes, the registration of cross-border students from England and Wales to ensure that they do not become liable for two poll taxes, information from the Registrar General of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on deaths of those who are on the register for the poll tax to ensure that bereaved widows are not hounded, the prescription of base rates for non-domestic rates, and regulations on the direct reduction of poll tax from social security payments when arrears have been accumulated, which was one of the promises made in Committee by Mr. Michael Ancram. He said that that would never take place but now we know that it will.
406
There are also to be regulations on the provision of information to registration officers from the DSS, as we now have to call it. The promise was made by Mr. Michael Ancram in Committee that no information would be sought from the DSS. We find now that information will be given to registration officers on all those claiming income support. It is a great shame that promise after promise is being broken by the Government.
One major set of regulations is still to come, and they concern the rebate scheme. It appears that we are to have yet another broken promise. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has obtained a letter which was written by the Secretary of State for Social Security to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It makes it fairly clear that the Government will break a promise that was given to those who are the hardest off in our society, the very poorest, who are living on basic income support, that their benefit would be uprated by the 20 per cent. that they will have to pay as a contribution to their poll tax liability. That promise will be broken by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
It is a pleading letter. The Secretary of State for Social Security pleads with his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to ensure that the rating matches the average poll tax payment. He is asking for an uprating of £1·05 and £1·30 for single people under and over 25 respectively and £2·10 for couples. The uprating of £1·05 assumes an average poll tax in Scotland of £273. No one believes that that will be the average. It will certainly not be less than that.
Mr. Bill Walker: Why not?
Mr. George Foulkes: My hon. Friend will tell the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) in a moment.
Mr. Maxton: As my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said, I will tell the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
Poll taxes will be considerably higher in local authority areas which have the most of social security benefit claimants. Before Conservative Members start claiming, as usual, that that is due to high spending Labour-controlled local authorities—
Mr. Bill Walker: It is.
Mr. Maxton: That having been said, I shall quote the Secretary of State for Social Security. He said:
"I should also emphasise that my officials' estimates arc, if anything, on the low side because they are based on average liabilities to the community charge for the population as a whole whereas the Prime Minister's pledge was to protect the average liability for those on income support. The latter will probably be higher, as income support recipients are not spread uniformly throughout the country but tend to be in poorer authorities with higher levels of spending per capita."
Hon. Members should notice that the authorities referred to are not high-spending Labour-controlled authorities, but poorer authorities, which have greater demands made on them and, equally, a lower tax rate to start with. That is the point that hon. Members should bear in mind.
One other point that is made by the Secretary of State for Social Security is that, unlike any Scottish Office Minister at any time, he is prepared to concede that the average poll tax in Scotland will be higher because local authorities may not be able to collect all of it. He says:

407
"The fact that local authorities may not collect the community charge in full is one, but by no means the only, reason for these estimates being higher than those published for the current year."
The letter reveals a very serious breach of promises made by the Prime Minister, by the Secretary of State for Scotland and by junior Ministers in Committee. The Miniser has a responsibility tonight—
Mr. Foulkes: A duty.
Mr. Maxton: The Minister has a duty to say that that will not happen, that the promise that has been made will be fulfilled and that, if necessary, the rating will be even higher than the Department of Social Security is asking for, so that those who are the poorest in our society will receive their full entitlement.
Mr. Norman Buchan: My hon. Friend is being too kind and lenient. Despite the lateness of the hour, we should ask for a Treasury Minister to come here to reply to the letter before we give the regulations our blessing. That should have happened before now.
Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Treasury Bench should ensure that a Treasury Minister is here before 11.30 pm, when the debate finishes. It would make more sense for a senior member of some standing in the Government to be here, even the Secretary of State for Scotland, rather than his underling. That would add a little more weight to the debate.
I do not want to speak for long because many hon. Members want to take part in this short debate. However, I must say that we await the details of the rebate scheme with interest. There has to be a rebate scheme with the poll tax. If many Conservative Members had their way, there would be no rebate scheme. Over a month ago, the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland hyped the rebate scheme in Scotland and made a great deal of play of its being generous and taking account of ability to pay.
But everybody must pay a minimum of 20 per cent. That is the first point to be made about the rebate scheme. If there is not full uprating, someone under the age of 25 will pay a minimum of £1 a week even in the lowest rated authority in Scotland. In other rating authorities, the amount will be considerably more. That amount is nearly 4 per cent. of a low income. My wife and I will pay £500 in poll tax, but that is only 1·5 per cent. of our income. That is what makes this tax so obscene and unfair: someone on the lowest possible income will pay a higher percentage of his income than someone on my income will pay.
We shall continue on all occasions to fight the poll tax. We shall put the case to the people of Scotland and the people of Great Britain as a whole. As is clear from the last general election, the tax will bring down the Government. It will lose many Conservative seats in England and Wales. We shall form the next Government, and we shall withdraw the poll tax.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. As this is a short debate and many hon. Members wish to take part, brief speeches would be appreciated.
10.25 pm
Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has continued his speeches of misinformation. We seem to have gone round and round the buoy several times on the community charge, as directed by the hon. Gentleman.
In a general debate on the community charge, I think that we should record the good news that registration has gone so well in Scotland. Only an infinitesimal proportion of people have not registered. That is entirely contrary to the expectation of Opposition Members, who hoped that it would be a rating disaster. It has turned out exactly the opposite: the Scottish people have shown great responsibility, and have reacted to the registration procedure as we had anticipated. I think that they now understand, despite the Opposition's efforts, that it is a fair system and particularly helps those on low incomes. The Opposition have gone out of their way to avoid discussing the rebate scheme, and have spent the last few months scaremongering in Scotland and trying to create dissatisfaction and dissension about a new system that is entirely different from the rating system, based as it is on fairness and the ability to pay.
As the day of implementation gets closer the Opposition are realising how wrong they have been about the views of the majority in Scotland—despite the public opinion polls. As we all know, anyone can get the right answer out of any public opinion poll. I anticipate that by next summer there will be even less opposition to the charge than at present, especially when people find out what the charges will be. The hon. Member for Cathcart —with, no doubt, his cohorts behind him—has grossly inflated the likely charge. The hon. Gentleman said that the average charge might be £250, but obviously a good many local authorities will charge less if the average is as high as that. My authority, which has not been the warmest supporter of the charge, estimates it at £230, including the water rate. I believe that it will be very much lower than the figures bandied about by the Opposition.
Until now—when they realise that the charge is so imminent that they will have to accept it—Opposition Members have dodged explaining to the Scottish population about the rebate scheme, that 80 per cent. will be available to those with the appropriate income level and that those who thereafter still cannot afford the 20 per cent. will have support from the DHSS. There could be a 100 per cent. rebate for those on the lowest incomes.
Mr. Foulkes: That has not been published.
Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman says that it has not been published. Opposition Members do not seem to read what is in the newspapers or listen to what Ministers say. Let me give them some examples. A married couple with two children aged under 11 would not pay the full community charge unless their gross income was more than £8,800 a year, the equivalent of £135 a week.
Mr. Foulkes: That is great.
Sir Hector Monro: Yes, it is nice to know. That couple would probably be paying more under the present rating system.
A pensioner couple would need to have a gross unearned income of £6,300 a year—the equivalent of £115 a week—before they would pay the full community charge.
Mr. Foulkes: Did the hon. Gentleman get permission to leak this?
Sir Hector Monro: Well, it is much better than the stuff that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) produced—that was the greatest non-event of the year. After listening to the one o'clock news I thought that something dramatic was going to turn up later on, but it all fell as flat as a pancake.
A single pensioner would need to have a gross unearned income of more than £3,530—a net income of £66 a week —before he would have to pay the full community charge. I could give a whole list of cases that would show the effectiveness of the rebate scheme. We should all welcome that and publicise it rather than try to sweep it under the carpet and, at the same time, claim that it is a raging disaster.
Mr. John Heddle: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in Scotland, as well as in England, the Labour party proposals would replace one unfair taxation with two—a capital valuation as well as a valuation based on local income tax? Surely that would hit the pensioners, those who can least afford to pay? [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) will resist the temptation to discuss matters other than those before the House.
Sir Hector Monro: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but my hon. Friend is right. The scheme presented by the Labour party is so complicated that no one understands it.
Given that I have explained some of the rebate scheme to the Opposition—there is a great deal more to it, but I shall obey your suggestion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be brief—we are entitled to know where the Opposition stand on the issue.
I am glad to note that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) is present, because on 17 September she was quoted in a newspaper as saying:
"if voting does not get you what you want and the Government does not reflect the will of the people, then you have to resist that Government by any means open to you."
The only man of sense and the only man in step in the Labour party is the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) who has said:
"you can't argue for the rule of law when the right people are in charge and have the luxury of picking and choosing when they are not. A party which takes this course forfeits respect."
The hon. Gentleman is the only chap to understand that the rest of his party is forfeiting respect.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Earlier, when we were discussing the Scottish homes legislation, the point was raised about the landlord who attempts to continue charging rents and rates on a house when the poll tax is implemented. The Minister said that, in that case, the tenant was being charged fraudulently for rates and that he should complain and refuse to pay. That is the Minister's advice to a tenant who may be poor, young or elderly or who may have difficulty with the English language. The Conservatives are on the side of the landlord who attempts to defy the law by obtaining money under false pretences. We are on the tenants' side.
Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Lady does not understand the point. That landlord would be breaking the law and it
410
would be wrong to pay something when it is illegal. The objective of our legislation is to help people who are paying the community charge.
Mr. George Galloway: The hon. Gentleman should take the balls out of his mouth because I cannot understand what he is saying.
Sir Hector Monro: The Door is over there if the hon. Gentleman cannot understand. The people of Dumfries understand more than they do in here. I would like to retort to that remark, but I would only embarrass the hon. Gentleman.
This week Opposition Members have been visiting Govan and we are entitled to know what the Labour party candidate had to say about paying the community charge, the candidate said:
"The policy allows individuals like myself to refuse to pay as a personal gesture of solidarity"—
[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are moving away from the issues before the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confine his remarks to the motion before the House.
Sir Hector Monro: As I appreciate the embarrassment on the Opposition Benches, I will not proceed with that line.
However, the people in Scotland would certainly like to know where the Labour party—which seems to be fractured in every direction—is going with respect to the community charge. The intention to defy the law is a shocking example from any party that aspires to government in Scotland, and that applies as much to the Scottish National party and the Democrats as to the Labour party.
The regulations that are the subject of the Prayer tonight help to clarify a number of important parts of the community charge legislation. They add substantially to helping those who need help and we should have no problem approving them tonight. I warmly support my hon. Friend the Minister's proposals. We have had another opportunity tonight to show that the Labour party does not understand the community charge. It is hopelessly split and is against the wishes of the people of Scotland.
10.35 pm
Mrs. Ray Michie: When I saw that these regulations had been brought forward tonight, my immediate reaction was to say: "How much longer is this going to go on? How many more bits and pieces will be brought to the House in a patched-up job?" Will the Minister assure us that the regulations will help the individuals and the local authorities which collect the poll tax? Will he also confirm that no individual will be excluded from the electoral register simply on the grounds that he or she is exempt from the personal poll tax due to severe mental impairment?
That exemption clause should probably be extended. The revised definition of severe mental impairment extends the original definition to include those suffering from an injury to the brain causing severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning which appears to be permanent. It could be argued reasonably that dementia —and Alzheimer's disease is the commonest form of dementia, in neurological terms—can be described as

411
injury to the brain. Should those sufferers be included? We should also consider dementia sufferers in residential care or in hospital who will be exempt from the charge while those living in the community will remain liable to it. That does not seem to be particularly fair.
I am also interested in the need for a certificate to qualify for exemption. I understand that the registration officer requires information from a general practitioner. With all due respect to general practitioners, who are busy people, I believe that "general" is the operative word. I am worried because it is the general practitioner who will say whether someone is severely mentally handicapped. Quite rightly, few general practitioners can make the proper assessment and conduct the proper investigation into whether someone is severely mentally handicapped.
Will those people who have to produce a certificate from the doctor for the registration officer have to pay for it? Will they get it free? With regard to the question of the invasion of privacy which was raised earlier, the form from the DHSS requests the date of birth in Scotland only. That has caused a great deal of resentment in my constituency. Here is the Department sending a form to the community charge registration officer saying "This person is getting income support. It may be that you do not know they are living at the address given below. You may wish to register them for the community charge." Already, information about where a person is staying is to be passed on from one to the other.
You asked us to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that I shall be. I hope to goodness that this is the final word on this awful poll tax. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members seem to think that there will he more, but it remains unfair and regressive, and the Government will rue the day that they ever introduced it.
10.40 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: Following the trend set by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), may I say that I too am delighted that the registration process has gone so well. It has gone so well that the Opposition have gone quiet about it all.
It is also interesting that the hon. Member for Cathcart, if I understood him and our previous debates and discussions, complains that the Department of Social Security is to be consulted, yet any other proposals for amending local authority rates, from wherever they come, involve local income tax. That would necessarily involve substantial consultation and would mean that the town house would have access to information that it does not have at present. That shows the sort of humbug that we are hearing from the Opposition in their proposals.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will take this opportunity to answer a query that has arisen in my constituency on the views being taken by the assessors in Forfar. They have been advising some of my country constituents who have cottages which they let for holiday purposes, on an ad hoc, not an annual, basis to people on vacation.
My understanding of the debates that took place during the passage of the Scottish legislation was that such cottages would be treated as a business. I see the hon. Member for Cathcart nodding his head. However, the
412
assessors in Forfar are advising my farmers and others with cottages in that category that they will have to pay the double community charge, whether or not the cottages are let.
That is a fundamental and important difference because if the cottages are let for holiday purposes the rate charge can be set as an expense against the income from the lets, whereas the community charge falls into a different category.
I have been interested in some of the Opposition's comments on the rebate scheme. There is no question but that this has been welcome. It may interest the House to know that during the recess, in common with many other Scottish Members, I went round my constituency knocking on doors asking my constituents for their views on current affairs. [Interruption.] I do it every year. Is that unusual? I should have thought that I was merely doing what everyone else does.
I can tell the House that out of the many hundreds of homes on which I called, I received only two critical comments about the community charge. That says much more about public reaction to the community charge and why people have registered to pay it. All the other comments made to me were complimentary, with people saying, "It is long overdue, and we cannot see it come in quick enough." That is certainly the situation in North Tayside.
That did not surprise me, because I was able to advise single pensioners on state earnings only, that if they had £4,000 in savings, they would receive a rebate of nearly 70 per cent. of the community charge. I was able to advise married pensioners that those of them receiving £69·90 gross per week would receive the maximum rebate, which reduces progressively until income rises to £115. That was seen as being a responsible way of offering rebates and of making the community charge acceptable to the population at large.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: When the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) explained to pensioners that they will receive a 70 per cent. rebate of poll tax, did he also explain that they did not have to pay any rates at all before?
Mr. Walker: I may first tell the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) that I never once discussed the poll tax—it does not exist. I discussed the community charge. I discussed with those individuals their current situation, which is what I believe the hon. Gentleman meant. I discussed also what will happen after the community charge comes into operation. I assure the hon. Member for Clydesdale that there were no complaints from any of the pensioners to whom I spoke.
What is important and relevant, certainly in my constituency, is that pensioners are among the most responsible and sensible of those in the community. They recognise that services must be paid for, and they acknowledge also that 14p in every £1 as their contribution, if they are paying the maximum community charge, is not unreasonable. If they enjoy a rebate, as in the case of the couple that I mentioned, they will receive a rebate on that 14p. The rest is paid for by taxation through central Government and the non-domestic rate.
I assure right hon. and hon. Members that what I have told them is no fairy tale. It can all be checked. I can mention the names of some of the towns I visited. They

413
included Aberfeldy, Pitlochry, Dunkeld, Blairgowrie Forfar and Kerriemuir. The people there all know that I have been to those places.
Mr. John McAllion: The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) obviously has detailed information about how the rebate system will operate when it is introduced in Scotland. I wrote to his hon. Friend the Minister of State six weeks ago, asking for detailed information about how the rebate scheme will operate, but he has yet to reply. Will the hon. Member for Tayside, North explain how he obtained his detailed information, when other hon. Members have been unable to gain access to it?
Mr. Walker: I obtained my information from the sources from which I normally obtain it. As hon. Members may recall, some time ago in the Scottish Grand Committee I commented that I always prepare my own briefs. That seemed to cause quite a stir. I can tell the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) that I obtained my information from the sources that are available to any hon. Member who wishes to make the effort.
10.48 pm
Mr. Dick Douglas: The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said that right hon. and hon. Members should read the papers to learn what is happening. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that on 25 October, The Scotsman carried a headline,
"Half Scots on poll tax rebate 'would soon be in arrears'."
Does the hon. Member for Dumfries believe that that is true? The article begins:
"Half of Scotland's 1·5 million community charge payers who next year will qualify for a rebate will be in arrears after only three months of its operation, it was claimed yesterday."
The responsible person making that claim was an officer of the Scottish Consumer Council, which has carried out a survey of what is happening just now—as the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) suggested one should do. Currently, people are in debt with their rent and rates, but they will be even more in debt come 1 April 1989. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) mentioned a letter from the Secretary of State for Social Services to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The letter states:
"I am copying this letter to Nick Ridley."
There is no suggestion that the Secretary of State for Scotland was sent a copy, yet it is far more pressing for Scotland than it is for England and Wales that there is some understanding of the rebate system and the cut-off points.
What is the position in Scotland? What is the Treasury saying? What defence will be forthcoming? What can the Secretary of State and his Ministers plead in aid?
My views about the tax are probably too well known for my own good. I have made my position clear and I only hope that others will join me in my regretful defiance. I do not take any pleasure in defying the law—[Hots. MEMBERS: "AV.] Let those who say, "Ah" be clear about what we are doing. What is the cost of imposing the law?
Mr. Irvine Patnick rose—
Mr. Douglas: I am not giving way because when I spoke on the Local Government Finance Bill I was told by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) that I had
414
no right to speak as it was an English and Welsh measure, despite the fact that there were hundreds of Scottish amendments—
Mr. David Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman votes on English measures.
Mr. Douglas: One way to cure that would be to give us a Scottish Assembly.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) spoke for the so-called Democrats—I mean no disrespect to her—about the severely mentally impaired. I shall briefly explain what the Government are doing by putting this measure on the statute book. There have been slight concessions and we understand that, in round figures, they will affect about 6,000 people in Scotland.
Let us examine the conditions being laid down for exemption for someone who is severely mentally impaired and living in the community. They do not apply to someone in a hospital or a home; they relate to someone who is being compassionately cared for in the community and who has to go through such a rigmarole to gain exemption. All conditions must be fulfilled for someone to be granted exemption on ground of severe mental impairment. They are:

"(a) he is severely mentally impaired;

(b) he is stated to be severely mentally impaired in a certificate of a registered medical practitioner;

(c) he satisfies at least one of a number of benefit/pension conditions—see Annex A."

I will not go through that. The procedure when a poll tax registration officer has been notified of a possible claim on behalf of a person with severe mental impairment is that he will use the form annex B to request:
"(a) evidence of the applicant's entitlement to one of the relevant social security benefits"—
which is an invasion of privacy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It is not nonsense. One thing for which I have fought throughout my life in politics is not to humiliate the poor and those whom we are sent here to defend and who cannot defend themselves.
The conditions continue:
"(b) the name of the applicant's general practitioner or other registered medical practitioner with knowledge of the applicant;
(c) agreement to the CCRO approaching the doctor to obtain a certificate"
and so on. They go through all that.
Mr. David Harris: That is sensible.
Mr. Douglas: The hon. Gentleman says that it is sensible. From his point of view, it may be.
Mr. Harris: Surely if we do not have checks on these matters, there will be widespread abuse and evasion. We must have sensible checks—nothing more than that.
Mr. Douglas: There has been widespread abuse for 6,000 people. We are talking about 6,000 people having to go through the rigmarole to obtain exemption. The most pointed fact is that, when all that is done, if the community charge registration officer declines to treat a person as exempt, he will enter the name on the register. What expertise has the poll tax officer to determine that matter? What assistance does he have? If he does so determine, there is a right of appeal, but who will appeal and humiliate themselves?
I have written to the Secretary of State, but he has still to reply. Should not the onus of proof be the other way?

415
If a medical practitioner adjudges a person to be severely mentally impaired, and if that person is in receipt of benefit, and if there is widespread abuse, should not the poll tax registration officer have to prove to the contrary?
Mr. Patnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Douglas: No, I shall not give way.
That is what we are doing to impose a tax on society. As my hon. Friends have said, it means that, in terms of a youngster of 18 earning about £4,000, the proportion of tax is greater than that of someone earning £80,000. It is
416
nonsense to argue that that is ability to pay. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute has rightly pointed out that there are severe restrictions and restraints. Members of the House of Commons are asking people to humiliate themselves to get narrow exemptions.
The House and the country should be ashamed. Conservative Members want to ensure that the more fortunate in society bear a lesser burden than the poorer section of the population. If that is the type of society that Conservative Members want to live in, we in Scotland should completely reject them. I hope and trust that, in the forthcoming Govan by-election, the signal goes out for a complete rejection of them.
10.57 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: For a second or two, I was fascinated by the speech of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). That was unusual. I thought that he was about to raise the flag of revolt against an aspect of the tax, but then the revolt fizzled out. Once again, he treated us to reminiscences of his personal canvassing around his constituency. I have distrusted these reminiscences since a previous poll tax debate just before the district elections. Hon. Members will recall that the hon. Member for Tayside, North assured us that his personal canvassing in his constituency detected an upsurge of support for the poll tax legislation. That was followed in the elections not only by the defeat of many Conservative councillors but by the fact that the Conservative party was out-polled by the Scottish National party in Tayside, North.
Like the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), the hon. Member for Tayside, North claims to be well understood by his constituents. I suspect that that will be a major problem for them both at the next election.
Sir Hector Monro: After the humiliation of the SNP in the general election, I am not surprised that they did marginally better.
Mr. Salmond: I am always disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's interventions. We shall settle for the result of the Govan by-election as being an accurate reflection of the relative standing of the parties in Scottish politics.
Dr. John Reid: While mindful of the necessity for the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) to maintain his position as the low flyer of the Tory Benches, may I ask the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) whether he believes the story that, of all the constituents the hon. Member for Tayside, North met, not one was worse off under the poll tax? If he does believe it, can he give us some advice on how to get a house in north Tayside?
Mr. Salmond: I recall that fantasy, but the hon. Gentleman should recall that the hon. Member for Tayside, North has turned down more Government posts than the rest of us would dream of being offered.
Mr. Bill Walker rose—
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman must forgive me. I resisted the temptation to intervene in his speech, and I shall now resist the temptation to let him intervene in mine.
I shall follow the unusual example in this debate of the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) and speak briefly about the regulations. Conservative Members seem to believe that the registration process is over. What is made clear by statutory instrument No. 1539 is that the registration process is a continuous one and the registration officer at any point from now until this dreadful legislation is repealed can demand information with menaces from any one of us. A snoopers' charter, once in place, will stay there until it is repealed.
I shall not attempt to emulate the eloquence of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West on statutory instrument No. 1541 concerning the mentally handicapped, but 1 do want to put this question to the Minister. How and why is it that the Government can spend so much time drawing
418
the offensive distinction between the severely mentally impaired, who will be exempt from the poll tax, and the merely mentally impaired, who will have to pay poll tax, but cannot draw the distinction between those on average earnings, the rich and the very rich in terms of their liability to pay the poll tax? How can the Government make such efforts to draw the first distinction but no effort to make the second?
Conservative Members seem to believe that the poll tax debate is coming to the end of its term, but it is just beginning. The full ramifications of what is being done are just beginning to be understood. I hope that the hon. Member for Dumfries can explain to his constituents why a young, single person on just over £50 a week will bear the full blast of the poll tax next year or why a pensioner couple on £85 a week will pay one full poll tax between the two of them. Is he really saying that the levels of rebate are satisfactory and reflect the principle of a person's ability to pay? That is without going into the shameful deceit that is being practised in terms of the rebate system for those on income support.
The impact of the poll tax in political terms is just about to be felt at the Govan by-election. But the real level of resistance to the poll tax will be at its highest and greatest at the point of payment next April. I give the Minister my personal assurance that I shall be part of that resistance, as will my colleagues.
11.4 pm
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I am sure that all Scottish Opposition Members who are not members of the Scottish National party listened with fascination to the electoral predictions of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I am sure we are all fascinated to know whether that party's candidate, who is, after all, a traitor to the Labour party, will win the Govan by-election for another brief spell of emotional fantasy —a glimpse or two of the tartan miasma. Like other salmon, such people come to Scotland only occasionally and go away for a long time thereafter.
I pay a sincere tribute to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas). His speech was responsible, and the House should honour it.
The Opposition have overlooked one matter of importance. Their criticism of the community charge is that it is a standard charge that is imposed regardless of ability to pay. An income of £60 a week has been mentioned. But Opposition Members never stop talking about the National Health Service, which is central to Socialist philosophy. How do we pay for the NHS? [HON. MEMBERS: "Through taxes."] We have a standard charge, called the national insurance contribution. People who earn £30, £40, £50, £60, £70, £80, and £90 a week all pay exactly the same charge—or their employers pay it on their behalf.
In the context of the poll tax, therefore, we must ask who introduced the concept of a standard charge for an essential service—whether or not for the mentally handicapped. The answer is: the Labour party. It was the biggest fraudulent poll tax ever imposed on the British people in the name of the emotion of Socialism.
I have noticed no objection from any party to the fact that everyone, regardless of ability to pay, pays the same for a motor car licence, or a television licence—
Mr. Foulkes: Or a dog licence?
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), being a chap who wants a Scottish Assembly, is one of those who are particularly ignorant of Scottish history. The dog licence was not introduced to entitle someone to have a dog. It was introduced because, in 19th century London, people stole and sold dogs, so the only way to establish that one's dog was not stolen was to produce a licence for it. I remember my father—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not going to tell us too much about his father, and that we can now return to the prayer.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I was answering a charge about a dog licence from the wolf, the hon. Member who sits for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley. The licence was introduced because in the last century men stole dogs. It was not introduced to entitle people to have dogs.
I have never heard anybody complain that the rich man and the poor man pay the same price for a loaf of bread or a lettuce, a haggis or even a dog. The attempt to make out that the community charge is unfair is hysterical and foolish. We are replacing a system of grotesque unfairness with a system that is fair. It exempts those who are ineligible and it is correct. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley asked how much I will save on my castle. I was impressed when the BBC sent a team of 12 people from London to do a programme about how much I will save on my castle which, incidentally, I bought for £100.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a short debate and other hon. Members are waiting to take part. The House has established the principle of the community charge and we are now debating some very narrow regulations. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will confine his remarks to them.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I shall, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hypocrisy of the debate is evident from the sedentary illustration given by an Opposition Member. A team of 12 with four Mercedes at Edinburgh airport came to photograph this great castle of mine to prove how much I will save. Before they left they asked me where they could get the best meals and the richest hotels. On that trip alone they spent money contributed by pensioners and mentally handicapped people for their television licences and spent more money than I have paid in rates on my castle since I restored it. That is an illustration of the attempt to introduce a false air of unfairness into the debate. We have redeemed a pledge of fairness to those who have to pay their mite towards local services.
When all the hullabaloo and the attempts to get marchers out is over, when everybody is drained and when the Scottish National party has got the last bit of blood out of the Labour party, and when the Labour party has got the last bit of blood and guts out of the Scottish National party, people will say that this is a wise and fair tax that is also honourable and responsible.
11.13 pm
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: It is clear that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) has recovered all the faculties that he had
420
prior to his recent operation. The statutory instruments that we are debating are considerably more serious than either the hon. and learned Gentleman or his contribution.
Like some of my colleagues, I should like to focus on statutory instrument No. 1541 against which the Opposition have also tabled a Prayer. That and the letter to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury from the Secretary of State for Social Security, form two more pieces of that evil jigsaw that has become the poll tax/community charge in Scotland. It shows how much more evil it is than was predicted by many of the most bitter opponents of the poll tax. These regulations show a deliberate attempt by the Government not to target rebates at significantly mentally handicapped people, nor to absolve them from the need to pay poll tax on compassionate grounds. Instead, they are designed to ensure that these are the very people who do not claim, because it is too humiliating to claim.
In my work with the mentally handicapped in the eight years before I became a Member of Parliament, I built up many contacts with families with mentally handicapped people and with organisations that have done far more than all Tory Members put together have done for the mentally handicapped, or ever will. They tell me that this is the most pernicious legislation affecting mentally disabled people. As a result of it, many parents, who have to suffer because their children will never achieve what the rest of us might—although their achievements in their personal struggle are so great that many hon. Members would be ashamed to compare their modest achievements with them—will not go through the humiliation of going to the doctor to ask him to certify their mentally handicapped relatives as severely mentally disabled.
The doctors have written to me, as they have to organisations that deal with the mentally handicapped, to say that they are not qualified to distinguish types of mental handicap. That is not in any of their medical training. However, the Government are using them as a convenient way to cut the numbers of those exempted, so that almost nobody will be eligible for exemption.
Even those handicapped people who are in the same category as all those who will have to pay the minimum payment will have to pay far higher sums than has hitherto been admitted. That brings me to the letter and to the information that the Minister gave me on 25 April, in a written reply.
Next year, the community charge in Edinburgh is likely to be £442 for a single person, and £884 for a couple. After the water charge has been paid in full—there is no rebate on the water charge—at £105 for a single person and £210 for a couple, according to the figures given by the Secretary of State for Social Services, a couple in Edinburgh will be presented with a bill for £208·80 for their poll tax, and will receive from the DHSS only £109·20 to pay for it. That is a shortfall of almost £100, or more than £1·90 a week. Single people—the handicapped, the disabled and the pensioner on the basic state pension—will receive only £54·60 from the DHSS to pay a poll tax bill of £104.40.—a shortfall of £49·80—almost £1 a week of their meagre incomes.
In Glasgow, the comparable figure is £812 for a couple, who will have to pay £1·54 a week out of their benefits over and above anything that the Government are offering. In Dundee, a couple will be £1·13 a week worse off, even after the payments promised by the Secretary of State. In Aberdeen, the shortfall will be £46. In Edinburgh, the mentally handicapped will have to pay not just the 20 per

421
cent. that was set out in the Government information leaflets, not even the 25 per cent. that the Minister admitted would be the liability to personal community charge and water charge, but nearer 30 to 35 per cent. In Glasgow, the figure will not be 26 per cent., as the Minister predicted in April, but closer to 35 per cent. In Aberdeen, the minimum fee will not be 30 per cent., but closer to 40 per cent.
It is clear that, when the figures are adjusted as councils have been telling the Minister they will have to be adjusted because they may not collect the community charge in full —those words are now being echoed by the secretary of State for Social Security—the bill for individuals will be considerable.
Mr. Wilshire: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his figures are based on the assumption that Labour-controlled councils will continue to waste a great deal of money?
Mr. Griffiths: I shall not confirm that. The trend in Lothian region, when Labour lost control in 1982 and regained control in 1986, showed that, in each of the four years of Tory rule, the Tories failed to meet even the Secretary of State's guidelines and the electors threw them out on their ear. That is why there is a responsible Labour council there.
Mr. Wilshire: Rubbish.
Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman says that because his intervention was most ineffective and detrimental to the Government's case.
There is no doubt that what councillors, including Tory councillors, Opposition Members and even some Conservative Members critical of the Government have been saying is true. Tonight we see that the poll tax figure for Scotland will be far higher than has been predicted and that has now been endorsed by a Minister.
11.21 pm
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): The regulations reflect the sensitivity and flexibility with which the Government have approached the implementation of the community charge in Scotland, taking account, as many of them do, of arguments advanced and pledges given during the passage of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. They also show the progress of the community charge arrangements towards full implementation next April.
The House has this evening identified an important underlying theme to the debate, which was apparent in almost all the contributions—the question whether the Opposition believe in obeying the law. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I know that they had a conference in Govan to decide their view on this matter and it was plain after that conference that the party was suffering from a multiple fracture in its opposition to the community charge. Seven Opposition Members set up a committee of 100 prominent citizens against the community charge and a further four—the hon. Members for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), for Glasgow, Pollock (Mr. Dunnachie) and for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray)—also said that, although they were not taking part in the committee—presumably because they were not sufficiently prominent in the class structure
422
of Socialism—they were also unwilling to pay the community charge. The hon. Member for Provan dismissed the committee of 100 as elitist and bourgeois.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) put his finger on the issue when he quoted the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) in the Morning Star. She said:
"if voting does not get you what you want and the Government does not reflect the will of the people, then you have to resist that Government by any means open to you".
That appears to be the reality of the policy of the Opposition. It is no wonder that we now have organisations spawned by attitudes such as that, represented—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the Minister heard me reproach other hon. Members for straying wide of the matter. I hope that he will confine his remarks to the prayer before us.
Mr. Lang: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall reply to some of the other points.
For months, the Labour party has sought to frustrate the law through its "Stop It" campaign and its urgings to procrastinate or overwhelm registration officers with delaying tactics. They produced experts to talk about a shortfall in registration of 10 per cent., 15 per cent., 20 per cent. or more, whatever happened to suit them at the time.
I am glad to be able to tell the House that, in spite of the Opposition's feeble attempts to disrupt the system, and the assertions of prophets of doom that it would be unworkable, preparations have gone ahead as planned. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries said, the community charge registers have been drawn up successfully. The preliminary signs from registration officers are that the number of people included on the registers, which came into force on 1 October, amount on average to over 99 per cent. of the adults resident in their areas according to the Registrar General's population figures, not 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. The registers are subject to checking by the residents concerned and to the appeal process if there is any question about their accuracy.
This is a splendid result that gives the lie to the criticisms of the system that have been made. We have always said that the system is entirely workable and practicable. It is clear that the people of Scotland are more law-abiding than the Opposition give them credit for.
Over the next few months, it will be for local authorities to establish who will be eligible for community charge rebates and then to prepare community charge bills once the levels of the charge for 1989–90 have been set. We shall play our part in the process by undertaking a comprehensive publicity campaign to ensure that everyone is aware of the availability of rebates for those on low incomes. From now, on the standard procedures for updating the register as people move will apply. I am confident that they too will work smoothly.
Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Lang: I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way.
I look forward with confidence and great anticipation to the abolition of the domestic rating system on 1 April 1989. I am sure that the majority of the population of Scotland will join me in that.
Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Lang: No. I have a number of matters to cover and I do not have time to give way. I am sorry.
The regulations before us range over a number of issues that are connected with the abolition of domestic rates and the introduction of the community charge system to replace them. The need for the new provisions in the regulations arises for the most part from changes which have been made to the community charge system and to primary legislation in the Local Government Finance Act 1988. I make no apology for that. We have always made it clear that we would consider carefully the application to Scotland of any changes to the system that were made during parliamentary consideration of the Local Government Finance Bill, as it was, and that is what we have done. The revised and improved system of community charges will therefore apply on both sides of the border.
We have also made clear that we shall keep in close touch with the registration officers and other local authority interests to ensure that none of the changes that we shall be introducing will jeopardise the timetable for the introduction of the community charge system in Scotland. I am happy to say that the system is well on course for introduction next April, as we intended. The registration process has gone ahead and it has achieved nearly complete coverage. Preparations are well advanced for the setting up of a billing and collection system. I am confident that work will go forward smoothly in accordance with the planned timetable.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) referred to a letter that came into the possession of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). I shall make no comment on the propriety of the publication of letters between Ministers. I cannot anticipate the statement on the uprating of income support that is to be made tomorrow by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. The Government have given a clear pledge that income support levels will include an element that reflects the average minimum liability for the personal community charge, and we shall honour the pledge.
A number of those who contributed to the debate—
Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Lang: No, I shall not give way. I wish to respond to the arguments of the hon. Member for Cathcart about the severely mentally impaired.
It has always been our intention to exempt from the community charge liability on the ground of severe mental impairment only those who are unable to play any meaningful part in the democratic process. The 1988 Act amended the previous provisions to allow for the exemption of those who have become severely mentally impaired as a result of an accident in adulthood, for example, as well as for those who are congenitally mentally handicapped.
The hon. Member for Cathcart referred to the mechanics of the exemption process. I believe that the system that we have devised is a sensible and humane one. It will be for the person who looks after the application for exemption to inform the community charges registration officer that he or she wishes to claim exemption on the ground of severe mental impairment. The officer will ask him or her to nominate a general practitioner to provide a
424
certificate. The officer will then approach the nominated doctor and request a certificate, and make his decision accordingly. Any decision will be open to appeal. This procedure will keep to a minimum the inconvenience that is caused to those who care for a severely mentally impaired person.
Our debate marks another step forward in the process of removing the totally discredited domestic rating system. We have heard a number of criticisms of the regulations and of the community charge system in general, but I remind the House that they pale into insignificance in contrast to the huge and entirely justified weight of criticism that has been directed at the domestic rating system over the years. I rejoice, and so do the people of this country, that we are now within six months in Scotland of the ending of the domestic rating system for ever. I commend the regulations to the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 183.

Division No. 458]

[11.30 pm

AYES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Hood, Jimmy

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Hoyle, Doug

Battle, John

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Beckett, Margaret

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Ingram, Adam

Bermingham, Gerald

John, Brynmor

Blunkett, David

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Boateng, Paul

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Boyes, Roland

Kirkwood, Archy

Bradley, Keith

Lambie, David

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Lamond, James

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Leadbitter, Ted

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Lewis, Terry

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Litherland, Robert

Buchan, Norman

Livsey, Richard

Buckley, George J.

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Caborn, Richard

Loyden, Eddie

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

McAllion, John

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

McAvoy, Thomas

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

McCartney, Ian

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Macdonald, Calum A.

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

McFall, John

Clay, Bob

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Clelland, David

McLeish, Henry

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

McNamara, Kevin

Cohen, Harry

McTaggart, Bob

Coleman, Donald

McWilliam, John

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Madden, Max

Cousins, Jim

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Cummings, John

Marek, Dr John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Martlew, Eric

Darling, Alistair

Maxton, John

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Meacher, Michael

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

Meale, Alan

Dewar, Donald

Michael, Alun

Dixon, Don

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Dobson, Frank

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Doran, Frank

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Douglas, Dick

Morgan, Rhodri

Eadie, Alexander

Morley, Elliott

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Mullin, Chris

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Murphy, Paul

Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

Nellist, Dave

Foster, Derek

Patchett, Terry

Foulkes, George

Pendry, Tom

Fyfe, Maria

Pike, Peter L.

Galloway, George

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

George, Bruce

Redmond, Martin

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Reid, Dr John

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Robertson, George

Henderson, Doug

Rooker, Jeff

Hinchliffe, David

Salmond, Alex

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Short, Clare

Home Robertson, John

Skinner, Dennis

425

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Winnick, David

Steinberg, Gerry

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Worthington, Tony

Wall, Pat

Wray, Jimmy

Wallace, James

Walley, Joan

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Mrs. Llin Golding and

Wareing, Robert N.

Mr. Frank Haynes.

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Amess, David

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Amos, Alan

Day, Stephen

Arbuthnot, James

Devlin, Tim

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Dorrell, Stephen

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Atkinson, David

Dover, Den

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Durant, Tony

Baldry, Tony

Dykes, Hugh

Batiste, Spencer

Emery, Sir Peter

Bendall, Vivian

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Evennett, David

Bevan, David Gilroy

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Fallon, Michael

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Favell, Tony

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Fishburn, John Dudley

Bottomley, Peter

Fookes, Miss Janet

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bowis, John

Forth, Eric

Brazier, Julian

Franks, Cecil

Bright, Graham

Freeman, Roger

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

French, Douglas

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Budgen, Nicholas

Gill, Christopher

Burt, Alistair

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Butler, Chris

Gow, Ian

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Gower, Sir Raymond

Carrington, Matthew

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Carttiss, Michael

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Cash, William

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Gregory, Conal

Chapman, Sydney

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Chope, Christopher

Grist, Ian

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Ground, Patrick

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Grylls, Michael

Conway, Derek

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Hanley, Jeremy

Couchman, James

Hannam, John

Cran, James

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

426

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Redwood, John

Harris, David

Renton, Tim

Hawkins, Christopher

Rhodes James, Robert

Hayes, Jerry

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Hayward, Robert

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Heddle, John

Roe, Mrs Marion

Hind, Kenneth

Rost, Peter

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Hunter, Andrew

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Irvine, Michael

Stanbrook, Ivor

Jack, Michael

Stern, Michael

Janman, Tim

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Sumberg, David

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Summerson, Hugo

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Key, Robert

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Lang, Ian

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Thurnham, Peter

Lightbown, David

Townend, John (Bridlington)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Tracey, Richard

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Tredinnick, David

Mills, Iain

Trippier, David

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Trotter, Neville

Moate, Roger

Twinn, Dr Ian

Monro, Sir Hector

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Nelson, Anthony

Walden, George

Neubert, Michael

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Nicholls, Patrick

Waller, Gary

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Ward, John

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Warren, Kenneth

Oppenheim, Phillip

Watts, John

Page, Richard

Wheeler, John

Patnick, Irvine

Widdecombe, Ann

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Wilshire, David

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Pawsey, James

Winterton, Nicholas

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Wood, Timothy

Porter, David (Waveney)

Yeo, Tim

Portillo, Michael

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Powell, William (Corby)

Price, Sir David

Tellers for the Noes:

Raffan, Keith

Mr. David Maclean and

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

Rathbone, Tim

Question accordingly negatived.

GCSE (History Examination)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]
11.41 pm
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak about the concern that has been expressed by teachers and parents about the GCSE history examination.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science to the debate. I remember with affection when we were both councillors attending the Association of Metropolitan Authorities conference in Liverpool in 1980. There were a total of four Conservatives at that conference and we made sure that the Conservative viewpoint was made known during every debate. I also welcome the Minister's private parliamentary secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) to his first Adjournment debate in his new capacity.
I must make it clear at the outset that I am not opposed to the reform of the exam system. In some ways the GCSE is an improvement on the O-level examination. The traditional O-level was not perfect. It could be dull and success was often possible by repetition of the facts without necessarily understanding them. The GCSE has brought about improvements in teaching method through a wider use of documents and sources and it has increased pupil interest. I believe that it was right to widen the scope and type of question and to evaluate more fully the skills used in history.
The GCSE history examination, however, has fatal flaws. It has lost the best of the O-level examination and gained some of the worst attributes of the CSE. My interest in this examination goes back to my time as a schoolteacher, when I taught CSE and O and A-levels, although I left teaching before the GCSE came into operation.
I believe that history is valuable for its intrinsic merit. It is a subject that should be taught to children because it has an interest separate from anything else. It is also essential that pupils should know the past if they are to understand the present. Two weeks ago, at the Conservative party conference at Brighton, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science said that a sense of history is essential to the well-being of any nation. We are right to insist in the GCSE that national identity and national history are at the forefront of the objectives set for examination groups.
There has also been some debate and concern about the divide between skills and content. I believe that that division is a false dichotomy. Without the content as a basis for study, there can be no historical skills. Equally, without some skills—for instance, the ability to analyse evidence or appreciate the context of historical data of the society being studied—we can only truly speak of pupils knowing historical facts. We cannot say that they understand. It is important that they understand the context as well as knowing the facts.
The argument that skills and content can be divided is a false one. It is important that we should have both. That point was made by R. G. Collingwood, perhaps the leading philosopher of history this century, in his seminal work, "The Idea of History" in which he wrote:
428
"The enlargement of historical knowledge comes about mainly through finding how to use as evidence this or that kind of perceived fact which historians have hitherto thought useless to them".
That leads me to the major concern expressed by critics of the examination, which professional historians have taken up recently, the so-called empathy questions. An HMI document "History in the Primary and Secondary Years" published in 1985 defines empathy as:
"Simply a word used to describe the imagination working on evidence, attempting to enter into a past experience while at the same time remaining outside it."
The HMI definition, which concentrates on the evaluation of evidence while resisting direct and emotional involvement in the events, is very valid. G. R. Elton in "The Practice of History" went further. He said:
"Understanding what the evidence really says and understanding how it fits together is of crucial importance for the historian … Imagination controlled by learning and scholarship, learning and scholarship rendered meaningful by imagination—these are the tools of enquiry possessed by the historian.
It is the use of imagination based on the facts as known to understand the actions of participants from where the evidence is missing or imprecise to make informed supposition as to what may have happened."
That is a far cry from the empathy of the GCSE. Macaulay's statement that
"a perfect historian must possess an imagination sufficiently powerful to make his narrative affecting and picturesque",
has been corrupted into fiction writing.
Questions such as "Imagine if" and "Explain the feelings of" litter the GCSE papers. They are nothing but historical fiction. Here are examples from the Southern Examining Group on a question of the United States of America 1898 to 1968:
"Show how a democratic newspaper might have replied to these criticisms of Republican comment about the new deal."
A question on Japan and China 1890–1960 says:
"As a Japanese general at the time, explain your country's reasons for involvement in Chinese affairs in the 1930s."
A question on Britain and Europe 1945–1985 states:
"Explain the feelings and reactions of each of the following to the economic condition of Britain at the end of the Second World War: the owner of a pottery works; the manager of a shop selling pottery; a customer in that shop."
Those are the kind of questions that pupils are asked to answer in history examinations. There was a classic question on the welfare state 1942–1985:
"Explain the feelings and reactions of local education authorities to the issue of Circular 10/70. Explain the feelings and reactions of parents after the issue of Circular 10/65"
—as if parents and local education authorities were some kind of cohesive block with one point of view. Those are false questions which one should not ask 16-year-old pupils to answer.
Questions were also asked about the partition of Pakistan and India in 1947. Pupils were asked to write about the reactions of a person living in that country at the time. However, the pupil was not told whether that person was Moslem or Hindu, or what community that person belonged to. It becomes very difficult for a 16-year-old to put himself in the position of a professional historian and answer that kind of question.
It goes against the whole idea of education and history to suggest that there is only one viewpoint and only one way of teaching it. We should not encourage that in the GCSE.
I have another example taken from a trial paper issued by one of the boards:

429
"Write an article from the point of view of a supporter of President Castro living in Havana in 1962 explaining the missile crisis and condemning American policy in the earlier Bay of Pigs episode."
That is an open invitation to fiction writing. It may be good fiction writing, but it is not history.
Moreover, such questions are politically dangerous. They give a teacher with a political point of view to put across the opportunity for biased work within the class course work, and they can lead to indoctrination.
Indeed, some of the trial papers from the exam groups are outrageous. One said:
"Draft a speech to be made by a representative of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. This speech will justify these actions: the hijacking of aircraft to Jordan in 1970, the shootings at Tel Aviv airport and the attack on Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic games."
GCSE empathy is a parody of the real thing.
What was Her Majesty's inspectorate's view on the issue? The interim report, which came out in March, contained no comments on the concern that by that time had already been expressed. I think of the case of the dog that barked in the night. The remarkable thing was, of course that the HMI dog did not hark. In the latest report, issued only last week, the question of empathy received three lines. The dog is now whimpering but it is still not addressing the concerns that have been occupying the national press and teachers for some six or seven months.
Some of the empathy questions, especially on world history, are concerned with recent issues, which, in some cases, are still current. Indeed, one exam group stresses the need for pupils to read the newspapers for the purposes of the examination. We as politicians are aware of the fact that what seems urgent and relevant one week does not merit a footnote in the next. The problem with recent or current events is that they lack the perspective that history offers. Should we be devoting history lessons and examinations to the study of current affairs? By all means, let pupils learn about current affairs, but should the history lesson and examination be used for such purposes?
I want to deal briefly with other worries about the examination. First, there is too much project work. That is of special concern to pupils because every GCSE examination involves project work. Bright young children taking eight or nine subjects have eight or nine projects to do. That weight of work is counter-productive. My experience from teaching the certificate of secondary education is that they are rarely done well and almost never contain any original or individual research.
Leaving aside empathy questions, the structure of questions is debatable. Little exam history appears to be taught within a chronological framework. Nor is it thematic, except in a small number of cases. For instance, questions on the evolution of parliamentary democracy concern themselves with only the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Therefore, the pupil has no idea, unless he was taught it earlier in the school, of 1215 and 1265 and the development of Parliament over the centuries. It creates a ragbag of disconnected topics.
The level of questions rarely stretches the bright child. There are few extended essay questions, unlike on the old O-level papers where a student could be forced to analyse, think logically and write coherently. The level of questions rarely stretches a child at all and is often facile in the extreme. Indeed, the questions can insult the intelligence of the child of average ability.
430
Let me give some examples. The Northern Examining Association shows a cartoon by Low of Hitler with a smoking gun. The questions include:
"Name the person, shown in source A, holding a smoking gun."
That is given one mark.
"How did the cartoonist in source A indicate that this person was a Nazi?"
The answer is that he has a swastika on his arm. That earns another mark.
The Midland Examining Group had a question about the European Economic Community. It consists of two paragraphs with some missing words. They are at the bottom of the page. Anybody of average intelligence with a smattering of general knowledge could guess where the missing words go. That may be an English exercise, but it is not a proper history exercise.
Some questions are confusing. A question on one paper talks about Zimbabwe and the fight for national independence. The question asks how the student knows it was a British colony. There is nothing in the extract to say that it is a British colony. It could belong to Germany or elsewhere. Therefore, the question does not follow on from the source material in the question. That is true of many questions.
Sometimes the terminology is not suitable for the time and place being referred to and could be confusing to the pupil. An example from another board starts off: "Hey Dad, this plebiscite—or whatever it is called—about staying in the Common Market." The 1975 referendum was not, to my knowledge, ever called a plebiscite. That was a word from the 1930s. It is historically out of place, and anybody being taught about the European referendum will wonder what on earth was the plebiscite. It appears that the exam boards are not thinking clearly before phrasing the questions, and about how ambiguous some of them are.
Turning to the evidence questions, many of them require no historical knowledge but are merely comprehension questions more suited to an English paper. They raise serious questions in themselves. In many cases the pictures and cartoons shown are irrelevant and would only confuse. I have one such example taken from the Southern Examining Group paper of summer 1988. It shows Disraeli carrying a Turk. The paper states:
"Study the cartoon below and then attempt all parts of the question which follows."
The three questions have no relevance to the cartoon; they are about the Eastern question, but otherwise they are irrelevant. It appears that, often, examining boards have stuck in cartoons to make the exam paper look pretty or interesting, but they do not help the student answer the questions.
Another famous cartoon from 1878 shows Gladstone and Disraeli covered in mud, accompanied by three questions. They refer to the cartoon, but the cartoon itself does not help one to answer them. I do not know who it is in the examination board who has the copyright on Punch, but its cartoons appear almost without fail in virtually every examination board paper.
In some cases—and I have studied many examples—the primary source material is not what it claims to be. I have another good example taken from the Southern Examining Group paper. I do not want to he seen to be getting at that group, but it seems to have the worst empathy questions of them all; it actually puts the empathy into the examination paper. It concerns a cartoon

431
of the 1921 triple alliance—a very famous Punch cartoon. If one compares it, as I did, with the original in the issue of Punch for 20 August 1921—as an eccentric, I have a very large collection of Punch magazines—one finds that key words have been omitted from the cartoon, as it is reproduced in the exam paper. The title has been left out. The whole purpose of the cartoon has been totally changed. If one wants to teach children about historical material, it ought to be reproduced as it originally appeared.
I am sure that there is scope for an enterprising university student to write a thesis on how extensively source material has been altered to suit the requirements of exam groups. There is scope for evidence questions, but the answers need to be obtainable from the source, they need to be relevant, and some thought needs to be given to them by the student—for instance, as to how they cohere with other material he might have.
My final point concerns marking of the examination. Sir Keith Joseph, as he then was, as Secretary of State for Education, called for criterion referencing—that is, that marks should be based on an accepted criterion that remains constant from year to year, in order that comparisons can be made. The previous system of norm referencing, whereby exam grades were fixed in accordance with a particular cohort being examined, was to go. Her Majesty's inspectorate claimed:
"There has been a move away from norm referencing towards criterion referencing."
According to Her Majesty's inspectorate, that is
"giving credit for positive achievements, or what pupils know, understand or can do according to predetermined assessment criteria."
That is from the "Introduction to the GCSE in schools 1986–88" published last week.
A report in the Daily Telegraph on 3 August called "History in the marking", which concerned the London and East Anglia Group shows that it is in the business of fixing grade boundaries:
"Our two chief examiners disagree on the minimum mark required: one says 12, the other says 15 … 'Oh this is no good,' somebody mutters. 'I've got a 10 and a four here. Anyone got two sevens?"
That exercise, as I said, is called fixing grade boundaries; in other words, translating marks into grades. That is a classic example of norm referencing. Certainly is not criterion referencing, when the grades move around according to the marks and to the numbers of pupils who have achieved certain numbers of marks. I thought that the GCSE was trying to get away from that, but it seems that bad habits die hard among some of the exam groups.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can give an assurance that those points will be examined. In conclusion, I shall make a number of suggestions. First, the empathy questions be transferred from assessment to the general aims section. Secondly, "imagine" style questions should be abolished, and that longer primary source extracts be used. Next, traditional, unstructured essay questions of the sort that ask the entrant to describe an account be reintroduced. Also, there should be a great variety and diversity of types of GCSE paper, with different historical approaches, so that teachers are not faced with solid uniformity. If need be, let us divide the history paper, as we do the maths paper, into two
432
overlapping ability papers. If we do that we shall eliminate some of the major problems that have been faced during the past few years.
Finally, we must ensure that English comprehension is no longer part of the history paper. We must return to finding out what the students know about history rather than testing their English—something that should properly remain within the English papers.
12 midnight
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I wish to pay the usual courtesies to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) and congratulate him on securing this debate. I certainly welcome the opportunity to discuss aspects of the new GCSE examination, especially his points about the teaching and examining of history. It is an appropriate time for such a debate as the dust begins to settle after the first GCSE examinations.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, we also have a report from Her Majesty's inspectors who have studied the introduction of the GCSE in our secondary schools. I shall draw a little on the report as the basis for assessing the early progress of GCSE. It attempts to identify the issues that must be addressed. Although my hon. Friend does not think that it deals sufficiently with empathy, the work as a whole is professional and is the result of close monitoring over the past two years. I wish to put on record my gratitude to HMI for producing the document.
The report confirms that, overall, the GCSE is off to a good start. I think that we would all agree with that. It concludes that the examination has achieved many of the objectives set for it. In particular, it has led to improvements in learning across a range of subjects; it has succeeded in raising pupils' motivation and enthusiasm. The vast majority of those involved with the exam like it, which is a change; it has helped teachers to improve their teaching approaches and raised their expectations of what pupils can achieve.
The inspectors found that, overall, there was a significant increase in the number of lessons where effective learning was taking place. They judged that about four out of five fourth and fifth-year lessons were satisfactory or better. As we know, the results are encouraging. Early analysis of the first results shows that more candidates achieved higher GCSE grades—A to C—than with the equivalent O-level and CSE grades in previous years. Fewer candidates were left without anything to show for their years in school and their hard work during the GCSE courses. That should not in any way be taken, as some might mischievously take it, as meaning that the GCSE is an easier exam than the two exams that it has replaced.
I noted with interest my hon. Friend's clear critique when he dealt with history papers and set out for the House the individual exam questions. The Department does not believe, and nor do HMI, that at this stage we should be complacent. There have been some well publicised teething troubles, which have arisen in part because some of the independent examining boards did not get their act together as well as we had hoped. I have been known to criticise those bodies, and my hon. Friend has graphically illustrated the problems when reading out some of the questions. There have been difficulties with questions, and the examining boards are only too well

433
aware of some of the shortcomings that have caused disappointment and frustration for teachers, pupils and parents alike.
The HMI report makes it extremely clear that, although overall the GCSE has been successfully implemented, many improvements are still required. Everyone who is involved with the exam must study the HMI report and make sure that the GCSE is better next year, and that certainly applies most particularly to independent exam boards.
I now turn to the points that my hon. Friend raised in relation to his concern about history and the examination that youngsters have taken over the past two years. The assessment of work done during the GCSE course—it includes but is not limited to extended project work—is a central element of the concept of GCSE. At least 20 per cent. of marks in virtually all syllabuses must be allocated to course work. An element of assessed course work provides a better assessment of achievement than a system based only on the old end-of-course exams. Course work has certainly helped to make GCSE results a fairer and more accurate reflection of achievement by the individual pupil. It certainly enables teachers to tailor work more closely to individual needs and allows full credit to be given for a wider range of pupils' achievements. The HMI has seen course work of an exceptionally high quality—contrary to what my hon. Friend has said—from pupils of all abilities, and it has found that it has contributed in general to higher levels of performance.
I agree that there is a need for improvement in the way in which some course work is done. Certainly in some cases the work load on pupils has been excessive. Examining groups and the new statutory School Examinations and Assessment Council should look closely at some aspects of the assessment and moderation arrangements. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome that statement. The GCSE examining groups are already urgently reviewing syllabuses and administrative procedures in the light of experience.
Schools and teachers too should build, as always, on their experience of the first GCSE course work. There is certainly room for improvement in school and classroom practice—for instance, in better integrating course work into normal classroom teaching. My hon. Friend's concerns about project work need to be addressed. The HMI has found many examples of good practice, but, as always, there is need for further improvement to bring the general standard of course work tasks set for pupils up to the level of the best.
Inspectors see a need also for a continuing programme of training for teachers, focused in particular on assessment of course work. I hope that that will be in relation to history just as much as to anything else. The Government have allocated about £40 million over three years for introductory training for the GCSE. In the current year, about £15 million of that is specifically intended to train teachers in the techniques of assessment. In 1989–90 and beyond, GCSE teachers will benefit from the national priority that will be given to training in the assessment requirements, which will be associated with the introduction of the national curriculum.
My hon. Friend's concerns about GCSE history are shared by others within and outside teaching. The issue of empathy has been picked up in the HMI report. Although he described it as a whimper, we all agree that we must closely examine the issue.
434
In broad terms, "empathy" is shorthand for teaching techniques that are designed to help pupils to understand different viewpoints in history by encouraging them to look through the eyes of a contemporary observer. My hon. Friend has given many illustrations of how that is done. As my hon. Friend said, the merits of the empathy approach are the subject of current debate within the teaching profession in the context of history teaching generally, not just in the context of GCSE courses and examinations.
Of course, many of the aims of the empathy approach are welcome. As my hon. Friend said, empathy is one of a range of skills expected of a good historian. History teachers have long sought to find ways of making their subject rather more interesting, if I may say so as an ex-history teacher. They need also to look for ways of stimulating a wider range of pupils.
In my office this morning, I took a straw poll of officials. It confirmed my general impression that, by and large, O-level history has not done justice to what should have been an attractive and exciting subject. For example, one senior official barely scraped through O-level history because his teacher generated enthusiasm by teaching only the topics that enthused him, which, unfortunately, bore little relation to the syllabus. My private secretary's teacher never covered part of the syllabus because she believed that study of the Renaissance was unsuitable for a 14-year-old girl. Perhaps a proper use of empathy techniques can not only make history more attractive, but help children to develop genuine historical understanding.
There is also a danger that teaching that relies too much on a crude approach to empathy will result in superficial treatment of the subject, giving little benefit in terms of a proper understanding of historical events. I fear that there is a temptation to use empathy too much, particularly for the less able child, and that empathy may squeeze out knowledge and understanding rather than reinforce them. Empathy must not be a substitute for learning.
I sympathise with my hon. Friend's concern to see full criterion referencing in GCSE. This has long been central to the Government's education policy, and will come about when our plans for a national curriculum are implemented. Criterion referencing—the assessment of all candidates against clear attainment targets—is a central feature of the intended national curriculum assessment arrangements.
However, the GCSE is already a substantial improvement in this respect on O-level and CSE. The system of grade descriptions for the main GCSE subjects is a major step forward. The grade descriptions set out in general terms the types of performance expected at key grades. HMI confirms that the first GCSE exams have largely succeeded in the key aim of rewarding positive achievements.
A great deal of effort has gone into developing more thorough-going grade criteria to spell out in greater detail what these achievements are by grade and by subject, but this is a complex business that has not yet produced a workable system. The work must continue so that GCSE can become an integral part of criterion-referenced national curriculum assessment arrangements.

435
I note the many suggestions that my hon. Friend itemised at the end of his speech, but I must emphasise that GCSE has led to the start of many major improvements in the education of individual pupils—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at eleven minutes past Twelve o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER
  European Community and National Parliaments
  European Community and National Parliaments
  NATO (Spanish Airbase Facilities)
  NATO (Spanish Airbase Facilities)
  Southern Africa
  Southern Africa
  Australia (Visit)
  Australia (Visit)
  Nuclear Emergencies (Planning)
  Nuclear Emergencies (Planning)
  Environment and Development
  Environment and Development
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  European Community
  European Community
  Advertising Contracts
  Advertising Contracts
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Residential Homes
  Residential Homes
  Benefits and Allowances
  Benefits and Allowances
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Social Security Appeals
  Social Security Appeals
  Contingency Arrangements (Bradford)
  Contingency Arrangements (Bradford)
  Family Credit
  Family Credit
  Benefits (Take-up)
  Benefits (Take-up)
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Child Abuse
  Child Abuse
  Matrimonial Proceedings
  Matrimonial Proceedings
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Table Office (Computer)
  Table Office (Computer)
  Parliamentary Papers
  Parliamentary Papers
  Procedure Committee
  Procedure Committee
  Private Members' Bills
  Private Members' Bills
  Norman Shaw North
  Norman Shaw North
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  City Technology Colleges
  City Technology Colleges
  Student Unions
  Student Unions
  Student Finance
  Student Finance
  Vandalism and Arson
  Vandalism and Arson
  Ozone Layer
  Ozone Layer
  School Inspections
  School Inspections
  Testing and Assessment
  Testing and Assessment
  GCSE Results
  GCSE Results
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Nuclear Facilities (South Africa)
  Nuclear Facilities (South Africa)
  Nuclear Test
  Nuclear Test
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
SCOTLAND
  Housing
  Housing
  Cleaning and Catering Contracts
  Cleaning and Catering Contracts
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Solicitors
  Solicitors
  Prisons (Reports)
  Prisons (Reports)
  Urban Policy
  Urban Policy
WALES
  Physically Handicapped Persons
  Physically Handicapped Persons
  Bathing Waters
  Bathing Waters
  Pont Abraham—Carmarthen Link
  Pont Abraham—Carmarthen Link
  University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff
  University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff
  Housing for Senior Management
  Housing for Senior Management
  Gipsy Sites
  Gipsy Sites
  Welsh Development Agency
  Welsh Development Agency
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  Toxic Waste
  Toxic Waste
  Homes for the Elderly (Leasing)
  Homes for the Elderly (Leasing)
HEALTH
  Dental Services
  Dental Services
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Lithotripters
  Lithotripters
  Nuclear Plants
  Nuclear Plants
  Nurses Pay
  Nurses Pay
  Clinical Grading
  Clinical Grading
  Private Residential Care
  Private Residential Care
  Children
  Children
ENVIRONMENT
  Industrial Development (Rural Areas)
  Industrial Development (Rural Areas)
  Asbestos Fibres (Commons Court)
  Asbestos Fibres (Commons Court)
  Water Supplies
  Water Supplies
  Water Privatisation
  Water Privatisation
  Local Structure Plans
  Local Structure Plans
  Drugs Testing
  Drugs Testing
  London Docklands
  London Docklands
  River Pollution
  River Pollution
  Building Industry Contracts
  Building Industry Contracts
  Childhood Leukaemias
  Childhood Leukaemias
  Nuclear Waste Disposal
  Nuclear Waste Disposal
  European Commission (Environmental Research)
  European Commission (Environmental Research)
  Karin B
  Karin B
  Hazardous Wastes
  Hazardous Wastes
  Pollution Inspectors
  Pollution Inspectors
  Organic and Chlorinated Solvents
  Organic and Chlorinated Solvents
  Aquatic Environment (Pollution)
  Aquatic Environment (Pollution)
  Ravens (North Cumbria)
  Ravens (North Cumbria)
  Darenth Park Inquiry
  Darenth Park Inquiry
  Swan Farm, Ash-cum-Ridley
  Swan Farm, Ash-cum-Ridley
  Kent Structure Plan
  Kent Structure Plan
  Planning Appeals (Chelmsford)
  Planning Appeals (Chelmsford)
  Bradford Council (Staff Conditions)
  Bradford Council (Staff Conditions)
  Planning Permission
  Planning Permission
  Planning Authorities (Enforcement Powers)
  Planning Authorities (Enforcement Powers)
  Acid Pollution
  Acid Pollution
  Water Privatisation
  Water Privatisation
  Inner Area Programme
  Inner Area Programme
  Bathing Beaches
  Bathing Beaches
  Water Supply Costs
  Water Supply Costs
  Mersey Basin
  Mersey Basin
  Water Contamination (Report)
  Water Contamination (Report)
  Drinking Water
  Drinking Water
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Local Pay Additions
  Local Pay Additions
  Hansard
  Hansard
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Schoolchildren
  Schoolchildren
ENERGY
  Pit Closures
  Pit Closures
  Wave Energy
  Wave Energy
  Nuclear Safety
  Nuclear Safety
  Nuclear Materials Exports
  Nuclear Materials Exports
  CEGB Magnox Plant, Oldbury
  CEGB Magnox Plant, Oldbury
  Three Mile Island Nuclear Reactor
  Three Mile Island Nuclear Reactor
  South African Uranium
  South African Uranium
  Nuclear Reactors
  Nuclear Reactors
  Departmental Safety Inspectorate
  Departmental Safety Inspectorate
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Relocation of Staff
  Relocation of Staff
  Pendulum Arbitration
  Pendulum Arbitration
  Tourism
  Tourism
  "Prompt Payment Please"
  "Prompt Payment Please"
  Health and Safety Executive
  Health and Safety Executive
  Health and Safety Executive (Visits)
  Health and Safety Executive (Visits)
  Health and Safety Representatives
  Health and Safety Representatives
  Welfare Rights Claimant Advisers
  Welfare Rights Claimant Advisers
  Integrated Offices
  Integrated Offices
  Bradford Council
  Bradford Council
  Benefit Shops (Bradford)
  Benefit Shops (Bradford)
  Repetitive Strain Injury
  Repetitive Strain Injury
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisons (Night Sanitation)
  Prisons (Night Sanitation)
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Shoplifting
  Shoplifting
  Public Order
  Public Order
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Vandalism
  Vandalism
  Unpaid Appointments
  Unpaid Appointments
  Prison Sentences
  Prison Sentences
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Departmental Statistics
  Departmental Statistics
  Dangerous Driving
  Dangerous Driving
  Departmental Papers
  Departmental Papers
  Cosmos 1900
  Cosmos 1900
  Nuclear Accidents
  Nuclear Accidents
DEFENCE
  Crown Proceedings Act
  Crown Proceedings Act
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Contractors
  Departmental Contractors
  Nuclear Materials
  Nuclear Materials
  Franco-British Nuclear Missile
  Franco-British Nuclear Missile
  European Strategy Group (Studies)
  European Strategy Group (Studies)
  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Aircraft Accidents
  Aircraft Accidents
  Nuclear Strategic Forces
  Nuclear Strategic Forces
  Budget (Funds Allocation)
  Budget (Funds Allocation)
  Warsaw Pact Central Front Forces
  Warsaw Pact Central Front Forces
  Defence Estimates
  Defence Estimates
  NATO (Defence Budgets)
  NATO (Defence Budgets)
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
  Radiation (Leukaemia)
  Radiation (Leukaemia)
  South Africa (Uranium)
  South Africa (Uranium)
  Nuclear Tests (Verification)
  Nuclear Tests (Verification)
  Nuclear Submarines
  Nuclear Submarines
  Nuclear-free Campaigners
  Nuclear-free Campaigners
  Unsafeguarded Uranium
  Unsafeguarded Uranium
  East-West Military Balance
  East-West Military Balance
  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Cardiff
  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Cardiff
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  OECD
  OECD
  Private Industry (Assistance)
  Private Industry (Assistance)
  Balance of Trade
  Balance of Trade
  EC (Trade)
  EC (Trade)
  Knitwear
  Knitwear
  Industrial Prospects
  Industrial Prospects
  Self-regulatory Organisations
  Self-regulatory Organisations
  Barlow Clowes
  Barlow Clowes
  Inner City Task Forces
  Inner City Task Forces
  Post Office Users Council
  Post Office Users Council
  Mergers
  Mergers
  European Single Market
  European Single Market
  Teachers (Industrial Experience)
  Teachers (Industrial Experience)
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Manufacturing (Productivity)
  Manufacturing (Productivity)
  Japan
  Japan
  Insurance Brokers Registration Council
  Insurance Brokers Registration Council
  Trade and Industry (Wales)
  Trade and Industry (Wales)
  Competitiveness
  Competitiveness
  Financial Services
  Financial Services
  Overseas Companies (Investment)
  Overseas Companies (Investment)
  Manufacturing Output
  Manufacturing Output
  Venture Capital Industry
  Venture Capital Industry
  Engineering Products
  Engineering Products
  North-East (Overseas Investment)
  North-East (Overseas Investment)
  Manufacturing Investment
  Manufacturing Investment
  Manufactures
  Manufactures
  Estate Agents
  Estate Agents
  Manufacturing (Leicester)
  Manufacturing (Leicester)
  Competition and Mergers
  Competition and Mergers
  Mergers
  Mergers
  Japanese Cars (Imports)
  Japanese Cars (Imports)
  Company Bids
  Company Bids
  British Steel
  British Steel
  Commercial Leases
  Commercial Leases
  Competitiveness
  Competitiveness
  Aerospace Products
  Aerospace Products
  International Textiles Policies (Study)
  International Textiles Policies (Study)
  Motor Vehicles (Purchaser Protection)
  Motor Vehicles (Purchaser Protection)
  Incorporation
  Incorporation
  Foreign Investors
  Foreign Investors
  Company Law Reform
  Company Law Reform
  Consumer Credit Licensing
  Consumer Credit Licensing
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  North East Shipbuilders Ltd
  North East Shipbuilders Ltd
TRANSPORT
  M1 Traffic Flow
  M1 Traffic Flow
  A1 Traffic Flow
  A1 Traffic Flow
  Al2 (Accident Statistics)
  Al2 (Accident Statistics)
  Dangerous Goods (Air Transport)
  Dangerous Goods (Air Transport)
  Radioactive Materials
  Radioactive Materials
  Rheidol Narrow Gauge Railway
  Rheidol Narrow Gauge Railway
  Motorway Service Areas
  Motorway Service Areas
  King's Cross
  King's Cross
  M66
  M66
  Major Transport Projects
  Major Transport Projects

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.

Chile: UK Relations
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What communications they have received from the USA Administration on British supplies of arms to Chile and what has been their response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, we have frequent discussions with the United States Administration about Latin America, including Chile. The content of these remain confidential to both governments.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the case that before the recent election in Chile the British Government were strengthening the hand of the dictator General Pinochet by supplying him with arms and selling him naval ships while the United States Government were openly financing the support of the opposition to the general?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have no disagreement with the United States as regards Chile. We both wish to see an early return to democracy and a better human rights record. Differences in approach should not mask the reality of our aim.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the recent plebiscite in Chile was conducted on the most impeccable lines and that even the most prejudiced of observers agree that there were no improprieties whatever? Is my noble friend also aware that the course is now set for the return of Chile to full democratic procedures which will be welcomed by both friend and foe of Chile alike?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his constructive and optimistic approach based upon his considerable and first-hand knowledge of Chile and of Latin America in general. Together with the United States and our European Community partners, we certainly welcome the opportunity that the people of Chile were given to express their will; for the way in which that plebiscite was conducted; and for the prompt recognition of the result by the government. We now wish to see an orderly and peaceful restoration of democracy.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, have the Government reviewed their policy as regards arms sales to Chile following the plebiscite? Can the noble Baroness tell the House what is the justification for selling arms to a squalid and anti-democratic military dictatorship?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, since the plebiscite on 5th October we have considered our policy towards Chile and we see no reason to change it, especially in the light of the moves towards democracy. In fact our main sales have been to the Chilean navy. For example, four second-hand frigates of 1960s' vintage have been sold. We take great care not to approve items that we judge likely to be used for internal repression. It has been the policy of successive British governments not to disclose details of potential defence sales.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that what that really means is that notwithstanding the fact that General Pinochet remains as a military dictator, Her Majesty's Government will continue to sell arms to that government?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, our policy does not imply approval of Chile's poor human rights record in any way.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that Great Britain has had an extraordinarily long-standing relationship—it has lasted 170 years—with the Chilean navy? Indeed, it was a British admiral who participated in the formation of this great service. It can hardly be the case in a country with over 3,000 miles of coastline that the navy which operates on the sea has oppressed the natives.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. We have a long-established relationship with the Chilean navy. We are now satisfied that our defence sales policy is both responsible and correct. In any event the United Kingdom is not a major supplier to Chile.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Baroness not agree that to supply arms to a dictatorial regime is strengthening that dictatorship irrespective of whether those arms are used against the internal population? Does she not further agree that the United States has made it quite plain that it regards the supply of arms to Chile as dangerously unbalancing the power structure in the whole of Latin America? In the light of the Minister's previous answer can she tell us what signs she sees today of a return to democracy in Chile despite the fact that General Pinochet is still in power and apparently intends to remain so?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the plebiscite that was held recently was not an election. The arrangements for the transition to democracy have been detailed. It is expected that the election will take place in December of next year and that General Pinochet will remain in power until March 1990 when the newly-elected government will take over.
I cannot accept the noble Lord's view that there is any effect on the regional balance caused by the sales of arms by the United Kingdom. As I have said, we are satisfied that our policy is both responsible and correct. We take considerable care to ensure that any

1605
items sold are not those that can be used for internal repression. We must also be ready to recognise improvements where they are established in order to encourage further progress.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that a long-established relationship is a singularly weak ground for supplying arms to an extremely disagreeable regime? Will she agree that we would have been unwise to supply arms to Italy and Germany with whom we had a very long established relationship before the war? Therefore, to fall back on a long-established relationship as justification for supplying arms to a dictatorial regime which shows few signs of improving its daily practice is surely something of which the Minister cannot approve.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I do not think that my noble friend or I were using the long-established relationship as any kind of justification for some of the effects of the regime in Chile. We nevertheless do not believe that our arms policy towards Chile has encouraged the dislikable elements of that regime.

Higher Education: Increased Access
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to increase access to higher education in the context of declining numbers of 18 year-olds.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government's policies for better schools and greater flexibility in further and higher education are each contributing to increased participation rates both among school-leavers and adults, building on the 20 per cent. growth in student numbers already achieved since 1980.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, but is he not aware that an increase to 20 per cent. does not represent an improvement in the overall numbers in higher education? In the circumstances should not the Government be taking far more positive steps to expand overall numbers, and in particular the participation of those who are currently underrepresented in higher education?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I should have thought that 20 per cent. is quite a substantial increase. A higher proportion of 18 and 19 year-olds are each year qualifying for higher education and an increasing proportion of those qualifying, especially women, are being admitted. The Government's policies assume continued growth in the age participation index and in participation by mature learners.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that one of the ways to improve intake into higher education is to relax the two A-level
1606
requirement in colleges of further education? Does he not agree that we should allow children who have not been able to get the education they should have had in secondary schools to have another chance and get a year's remedial training in a higher education institution? However, after that year, if they do not then show ability, it is a question of disce aut discede.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I certainly take note of everything the noble Lord says and I shall pass on his comments to my right honourable friend. The Government are encouraging increased acceptance of vocational qualifications as a route into higher education. They are funding action research in means of increasing access at Leeds and Bradford Universities. They are encouraging better links between further and higher education through open college federations and improvements in the availability and quality of access courses and in the assessment of students with non-traditional entry qualifications.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, are the Government considering being more generous in making discretionary awards for part-time education? Lack of such awards can be a great obstacle to women returners. Industry is constantly saying that skill shortages are the largest obstacle to prosperity. It would be a help if my noble friend could do something in the way of greater generosity in discretionary awards.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I take serious note of what my noble friend says. The continuing growth in part-time student numbers in higher education does not suggest at the moment that tuition fee relief for these students would be an effective use of scarce public funds. However, I shall tell my right honourable friend what my noble friend has said.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Viscount accept that the financing of students is a serious issue? Will not the Government's proposals on fees and on the question of loans make this position very much more difficult? As the Government are so keen to encourage industry to make a bigger contribution to higher education, and indeed of many other good causes, will he look again at the system under which scholarship funds set up by companies to help their employees' children to go to university are taxed? That used not to be the case. In line with their policy of urging industry to spend money on causes such as this, can the Government consider whether that tax position could not again be reviewed?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noble Baroness's question is slightly outside the scope of the Question on the Order Paper, but I am sure that it is one which deserves consideration. I shall certainly draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, will the scrapping of British A-level and the introduction of baccalaureate A-level for entry into university improve the situation?
Viscount Davidson: I have no idea, my Lords. The noble Lord is much more familiar with this than I am.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in considering the question of increased student numbers, has the noble Viscount seen the recent statement by the chairmanin-waiting of the University Funding Council, who is a Member of your Lordships' House but is not in his place? It says that places in higher education should be reserved largely for those students who are willing to pay for them. Do the Government have a view on that?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, there is a vigorous debate taking place in university circles and elsewhere about fees, vouchers and other means of increasing the purchasing power of students with a corresponding reduction in block grants to universities. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science told the vice-chancellors on 28th September that the Government wanted the debate to mature. They will not reach a particular view and follow that up with concrete action without very full discussion with the new funding councils and the leaders of universities, polytechnics and colleges.
Baroness David: My Lords, as the Government are apparently so keen to increase the number of students in higher education, will the Minister agree to make it possible for those 16 year-olds in various local authorities in the north of England who have good O-levels—say, five subjects—and who are leaving, to stay on at school? In fact, 20 per cent. of those with five O-levels are leaving. Is that not a terrible waste? Are the Government prepared to help such young people to stay on at school?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall certainly pass the noble Baroness's comments on to my right honourable friend.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that increasing the age participation rate can be achieved without any increase in the overall numbers because of demography? We must therefore try to expand the numbers by bringing in more mature students. In those circumstances, surely the Minister will want to say something positive about how we can encourage mature students rather than discouraging them, as we do at present, through charging fees.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government are encouraging more people to go into higher education. However, the Government can do nothing to prevent the fall in the numbers of young people which demography tells us we shall see over the next few years. Our policies for schools are designed to improve standards of achievement for all pupils at all levels. That should feed through to increased participation in post-school education, including higher education.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in view of the inevitable shortage of skilled youngsters in the next few years, will my noble friend consider offering
1608
higher education and training to youngsters from third world countries on the condition that not only would they there after work in this country for a period of time but also that they would ultimately return to their own countries taking those necessary skills with them?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend's imaginative proposal has implications well beyond that of higher education. Nevertheless, I am sure that the departments concerned will take note of what he has said.

Bovine Somatotrophin
2.53 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are investigating the use of hormone BST in cattle in this country, and the hazards it may cause in milk and meat.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, three companies are currently undertaking trials of this product in the UK authorised through animal test certificates granted under the Medicines Act 1968 to determine efficacy of the product in field conditions. Before test certificates were granted the licensing authority was fully satisfied with regard to the safety to the treated animal and to the consumers of produce from the treated animals. Had there been any doubts about safety, the certificates would not have been granted and the trials could not have begun.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister two questions. First, why is it that the Ministry of Agriculture has refused to identify those herds that are undergoing this process of experimentation? Secondly is it not the case that it is not the injection of BST which may be dangerous, but the fact that that injection into cattle reduces their immunity to disease and therefore they must have a whole series of further injections? Are the public not entitled to know what the effect of those further injections will be in both the milk and the meat which is now being supplied to it?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's first supplementary question, Section 118 of the Medicines Act prohibits the disclosure of information supplied by applicants for product licences and test certificates. Therefore it is not possible, or desirable, to divulge that information. As regards the second supplementary, I understand that there is no evidence regarding the harmful implications to which he has referred.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the tests which the Government are authorising also look at the long-term effects on the cattle? As the noble Earl knows, you do not get anything for nothing. The effect of injecting an animal to put it way beyond its genetic ability is bound to have side effects. Therefore, I hope that the Minister and the Ministry are considering a fairly long-term experiment; otherwise it could produce very serious results in the production of our beef cattle, let alone anything else.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. Indeed, the Farm Animal Welfare Council has been consulted on the use of BST. The council has reported that there is no concern over short-term effects, and the longer-term effects are being considered in the ongoing field trials. In view of the evidence so far available, I suggest to the noble Lord that he should be reassured that with the bovine species there is an element of honesty and predictability. Indeed, I think that we can all agree that cows will always be cows.
Lord Carter: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that if the use of bovine somatotrophin is to be allowed it will be subject to a directive from the European Community? If that is the case, what is the Government's view regarding the enforcement of such a directive? In some countries of the Community the average herd size is extremely small, perhaps only five or 10 cows.
Can he further say, if research is to be done into the use of this product, whether the Government will regard it as near market research to be funded by the agricultural industry, or will it be regarded as basic research and therefore funded by the Government?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, as regards the procedures that are necessary for licence applications, for the use of bovine somatotrophin, I can confirm that those are being considered in accordance with the provisions and procedures of the Medicines Act and European Community legislation.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, if the Minister thinks that bovine animals are predictable, perhaps he should try taking a Friesian bull as a pet.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I have great respect for the noble Lord's ability as a farmer, farming as he does not far from where I live. I always take note of what he says.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, am I correct in believing that the use of this drug is to increase the yields of both beef and milk? Am I also correct in believing that there is a milk surplus and that we are selling milk products at knock-down prices? Under those circumstances, why is it that this hormone drug is used?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, the noble Lord has a point. The overall level of milk production in the EC is controlled by quota. However, BST may permit producers to achieve their quota with more efficient use of inputs.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I wish to refer back to the further injections to which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, referred. I am advised that such injections may well be antibiotics. Does the noble Earl recollect—if he is old enough—that many years ago a large number of children were diagnosed as suffering from milk allergy? Later, it was discovered that they were in fact suffering from an allergy to penicillin which had found its way into milk? Can we
1610
make absolutely sure that nothing like that happens again?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and of course I appreciate his skill in the medical profession. I shall pass on his remarks to my right honourable friend.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that despite assurances he has given about the safety of this hormone, there is considerable concern on the part of consumers in general about its likely effect on milk in the long term and, consequently, on health? Can he therefore assure the House that those concerns will be taken full account of by his Ministry before further experiments are authorised? Even if those concerns are found to be perhaps lacking in scientific certainty, will he take account of the fact that consumers may decide on the basis of their concerns—real or misplaced—that milk is no longer a safe commodity?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that milk or meat would never be allowed to find its way into the food chain if the evidence had not been carefully scrutinised and accepted by the Veterinary Products Committee. We must agree that while consumer fears from whatever source should be respected and addressed, nevertheless in deciding how to proceed in this matter, we must go by the evidence.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I welcome the news that the Government have set up tests to investigate the use of BST in dairy cattle, but will they pay attention to the results of those tests, unlike the findings of the committee set up by the EC under Professor Lamy to look into the use of growth hormones in these cattle which were totally disregarded?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I can reassure my noble friend that the results of the tests will be studied and acted upon.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the Minister agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench that this is a matter of consumer rights? Was he saying in answer to my first question that the law forbids the Minister of Agriculture identifying those herds which are now being injected with BST and, if so, surely it is time that that law was changed? He said that there was no evidence that the further injections could be damaging to health. That is not to say that they are not damaging to health. Before such experiments are launched upon the public, surely the public has a right to know what is being injected into milk and meat and the right to have the choice of refusing it by having them labelled.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, in answer to the main thrust of the noble Lord's remarks, there is definite evidence that there are no harmful effects to the consumer and the food chain. On the rights of the consumer to be entitled to information, the provisions of the Medicines Act 1968, to which I have already referred, were put there by Parliament so that

1611
a company's commercially sensitive information could not be pirated by rivals. It would be difficult to re-draft the provisions so as to allow, consistently and fairly, some parts of the application to be divulged but not others. And the process of distinguishing that which was commercially sensitive from that which was commercially safe would probably divulge the sensitive information anyway. Thus in short, although we are talking about cattle, the noble Lord should pay attention to the concept of the chicken and the egg.
Lord Morris: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House provide that the interrogator at Question Time asks one supplementary question and one only?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I may have to correct my noble friend; I think that it may be two.

Hospital Waiting Lists
3.3 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the latest figures for hospital waiting lists.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, on 31st March 1988 the in-patient waiting list stood at 678,800. That is 1·3 per cent. lower than March 1987 and almost 10 per cent. lower than March 1979.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Does it mean that the report in the Observer of 9th October which listed down to the last figure the number in each health authority and which showed an increase of 690,000 to 704,000 from September 1987 to March 1988 was erroneous? Can the noble Lord assure me that that information contained in that newspaper—I never saw a statement afterwards from the DHSS—was incorrect?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I tend to trust the department's figures. Any more recent figures will essentially be raw data collected from the regions and unvalidated by regional departments. They may not be on a comparable basis with previous figures.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister look into this matter carefully? I gave him the date of the very full report. Unless the Minister can correct me, I understand that the report has not been challenged by the department. It indicated a subtantial increase. Will he check the report so that Members of your Lordships' House and I may know and press a further Question on the Minister?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the difficulty is that until the figures have been centrally calibrated I cannot answer the noble Lord's question.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is it not a fact that raw data means uncooked?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I sincerely hope not.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, in computing the costs of reducing waiting lists—we know that the Government have computed them recently—to provide extra money, will consideration be given to the cost to public funds of paying benefits to people who are waiting to go into hospital. For example, if a manual labourer who is married with four children has to wait and not work for a year until he has his inguinal hernia repaired, the cost to public funds must be very great indeed.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the basis of all the Government's activities is to try to be as efficient as possible. I fully appreciate the point that the noble Lord makes. However in terms of our commitment, I must point out that expenditure on health per head of the population since the Government came to office in 1979, after adjustment for inflation, has risen by 22 per cent.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the past 10 years there has been a dramatic change in available medical treatment? There have been remarkable innovations. Has the Minister any idea how innovations such as heart transplants, hip replacements and so on, which were not available 10 years ago, affect waiting lists?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, treatments of acute patients in the health service since 1979 (in numbers) have risen by 19 per cent. Furthermore, day cases, which are increasingly important because of the advances in medical science that allow treatments to be carried out on a day-care basis, have risen by 87 per cent. At the same time, waiting lists have been reduced by 10 per cent.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that 46 per cent. of the National Health Service acute hospital resources is used by between 5 per cent. and 6 per cent. of the population; that is, the over 65s? Does he care to comment upon public statements which have been made in the West Midlands area by general practitioners who say that they are not referring patients, except elderly emergency patients, for consultations in hospitals because of the anxiety caused by the length of time that they have to wait?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have a fair number of statistics here, but if I had every statistic I would probably need a wheelbarrow. The median waiting time for admission in the past 12 months has fallen from seven weeks to five weeks.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, irrespective of whether the figures quoted in the Observer or those of his department are correct, does the noble Lord agree that the figures are much too high by any standards? What are the Government going to do to reduce those figures significantly in the future?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the figures will always be too high. As I said in answer to an earlier question, we have already demonstrated our good faith by the

1613
massive increase in real terms in the level of expenditure that we have made. I draw the noble Lord's attention to the commitment we made to the waiting list fund which we commenced a year ago.
Baroness Masham of Illton: My Lords, how many health authorities are buying facilities from military and independent hospitals which may be under-used at the time and which may help to shorten waiting lists?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the introduction of the waiting list fund we introduced a series of special projects to try to take advantage of hospitals such as military hospitals which the noble Baroness mentioned. We hope that that is the start of a successful further development of integration and of successful practice within the health service.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, do not the criticisms of noble Lords opposite have something of a hollow ring? I mention in particular the Government's record when the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was in office when their spending on the NHS as a percentage of GNP fell, when nurses' pay fell by one-fifth, when spending on hospital buildings fell by one-third and when waiting lists in particular—the subject of this question—rose by 50 per cent.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for taking the opportunity of reminding your Lordships' House of those facts, with which I entirely concur.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether in view of the information he has given the Government have any plans for very considerably increasing the number of hospitals?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the only fact on which I know I am right in answering that question is that the greatest ever hospital building programme since the founding of the National Health Service has taken place under this Government.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister be prepared to put into the Library the full statistical details which he gave us in his Answer to my Question? Clearly there is a misunderstanding of the published figures. Secondly, will he check on the figures that were given by the noble Baroness in relation to the period between 10 and 13 years ago? Perhaps the noble Baroness will check. She may see that those figures are absolutely incorrect, because I know them to be so.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fear that I shall not be extending this debate satisfactorily if I reduce it to an argument between the department and the Observer.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I think that there is a misunderstanding. I asked whether the Minister would put the figures that he quoted to me from his department in the Library for reference.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, they will be in Hansard, we hope.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Housing Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Church of England (Pensions) Measure will be taken.

Housing Bill
3.12 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill he now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—( The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 92 [Right conferred by Part IV]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 169A:
Page 70, line 32, at end insert—
("where at least 50 per cent. of those responding to the consultation mentioned in section 101 below have given notice of their wish to transfer to the applicant").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 169A I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 191. I shall do this at my usual deliberate pace at the beginning of proceedings in order to allow noble Lords on all sides of the House to make an orderly retreat. I rather suspect that if we have any more weeks like this one we shall reduce the audience for the "Parliament Programme" to single figures. We are certainly moving very fast in that direction.
The amendments to which I am speaking now strike right at the heart of the main subject of controversy in Part IV of the Bill, which is concerned with what the Government laughably call tenants' choice. We argued at Second Reading and in Committee that the proposals which the Government make for the transfer of secure tenants from public sector landlords to alternative landlords who may apply to take over their properties are grossly undemocratic. The whole structure of the Bill confirms this.
What the Government in political speeches call tenants' choice turns out, when we go to Part IV of the Bill and to Clause 92, which is the key clause in Part IV, not to be a charter for tenants to have a choice of landlord but a charter for applicants to seek to take over secure tenants in public sector accommodation. There are many bad proposals, but the worst single proposal about this procedure, which is predicated entirely on the rights of applicants rather than the rights of tenants, is the voting procedure. As the Bill passed through your Lordships' House at Committee stage, under this procedure in order for an application not to go ahead 50 per cent. of the tenants concerned with the application had positively to vote against that application.
I must repeat the argument that has been made before but I shall attempt to do so briefly. The proposal means in effect that any tenant who is not able to vote, for any reason whatsoever, whether through being absent, being elderly. not understanding the English language clearly enough or being unavailable for any cause, is counted as voting in favour of the application. That is the fundamental defect of the Government's proposal and it is the way in which the Bill reaches your Lordships' House again on Report after the Committee stage.
There are several government amendments and one in particular makes a minor change to that proposal. But it still leaves the situation that nonvoters are counted as supporting the application. It still leaves that basic denial of democracy unchanged. At Committee stage we moved that a majority of those eligible to vote should be required for an application to go ahead. We argued that the change was so significant, so far-reaching for the tenants in the estates concerned, that every safeguard possible must be provided to make sure that the tenants could not be transferred unwittingly as well as unwillingly. The Committee of your Lordships' House rejected that amendment. We are not putting it forward again. We are putting forward a more modest proposal, which is that 50 per cent. of those actually voting should have to approve the transfer in order for it to take place.
I find it difficult to understand what other definition of democracy there could be than that a majority of those taking part in any voting procedure, whether it is an election for Parliament or for any other purpose, should have to support a change or oppose a change for it to take place or not to take place. Yet the Government have departed in this instance from that principle and are proposing a form of balloting. In this procedure—whatever the minimum turnout figure which is finally agreed by
your Lordships' House today there could still be a majority of those voting against a change, and yet the change would take place on the votes of a minority of those voting. That cannot be democratic and it cannot be acceptable.
In this amendment we propose to ignore the votes of those who do not take part in the ballot. That is what happens in all elections. It is not ideal from our point of view because we feel that those who do not take part ought at least to have some safeguard, because many of them are not taking part for very good reasons. Nevertheless, we have come to this compromise which we believe ought to be acceptable to your Lordships' House. I cannot see any defence on democratic grounds for an alternative to this procedure.
I wish to refer to one particular point which was of great concern to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, when we discussed the matter in Committee. He expressed his concern about the voting procedures but felt that his concerns could be
mitigated at any rate—and I do not want to put words into his mouth—provided there was an absolutely secure provision that those who had voted
1616
against a transfer of estates to an applicant would have the opportunity individually not to transfer.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? It was not "mitigated" but "resolved".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the elucidation. I was not sure what the noble Lord's final position was and I am glad to have given him an opportunity to express it. I think he would be satisfied with the provision in the Bill which was agreed at Committee stage that the Secretary of State shall make orders so as to secure what he wants. That has satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, but I must say that it does not satisfy us. It was a valuable concession in itself, but I thought that I should refer to this issue because of the objections that we still have to it.
The point that I wish to make is that although we agree that those not voting should not be counted either way in the decision as to whether the estate should transfer, they should still have an opportunity of opting out of the procedure. As the Bill is framed, even after the amendments in Committee, that will not be the case.
I hope that if the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, thinks about this again he will consider that the concession that has been made should be extended in that way. But the fundamental point still remains. It cannot be democratic for a majority of those voting to oppose a move and for that move to be forced on that majority by the votes of a minority and the abstentions of others. Whatever the minimum turnout figure, that is a denial of any definition that we can possibly accept of democratic electoral procedures. I hope that the House will consider that this is a realistic alternative to what we put forward in Committee and that it will receive the support of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I must say right at the beginning that I fundamentally disagree with the portrayal by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, of the present voting system. Rather discourteously in my view, he referred to the major concession offered by the Government in Amendment No. 190—we shall come to that in a minute—as a minor change. It is far from being a minor change. It was as a result of listening to and hearing what the noble Lord had to say that I discussed this matter with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and put forward this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl should feel it necessary to accuse me of discourtesy. I was referring to policies, not to individuals who put them forward.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the policy is a major change, not a minor change, as I am sure the noble Lord will admit. Amendment No. 191, which is grouped with Amendment No. 169A, and Amendment No. 181, which we shall be debating separately later although I shall have to touch on it in my reply, would reverse the operation of Clauses 102

1617
and 99, which are the means by which the Bill ensures that qualifying tenants who want to stay with their existing landlords are able to do so.
At present the applicant may but is not obliged to proceed unless a majority of those eligible to be consulted decide to stay with their landlords and no-voters have their homes excluded or leased-back. Amendment No. 191 would require a majority of those voting to vote in favour if an applicant was to be able to proceed and Amendment No. 181, which we will argue later, for automatic lease-back or exclusion of any property whose tenant did not vote positively in favour of transfer.
I have explained repeatedly why the structure of the voting arrangements in Clause 102 and the arrangements in Clause 99 for the exclusion of leaseback of no-voters' homes are as they are. The whole point of tenants' choice is to give a new opportunity to as many tenants as possible in the public sector who may want to go on renting their present house or flat but for one reason or another want a change of landlord.
Sometimes they may feel that the existing landlord is not doing his job properly. Though many local authorities are good landlords, all of us who know anything about the public sector stock know of all too many cases where there is valid cause for tenants to be concerned. Some tenants may be suffering from poor conditions arising from cumulative disrepair and lack of maintenance in the past. Some may simply want better current maintenance or a more effective and faster response to maintenance needs as they arise. Some, whether or not they have problems of this kind, will I hope be excited enough by the opportunities on offer to want to set up in the landlord business themselves by forming a cooperative or a community based housing association with their neighbours; and whether or not individual tenants transfer, competition will be good both for them and for their landlords, promoting better services, more efficient operations and better value for tenants. Surely that is something on which all noble Lords can agree.
There is nothing to stop tenants from looking for a new landlord now. But if they find one they can only go to him if their existing landlord is content to help them. This Bill gives the tenants and responsible new landlords together the power to make tenants' wishes for change stick. That is why it is conceived as a genuine tenants' choice, in effect, a new tenant's right—far from what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, portrayed it as.
To make this new right a reality we are proposing to equip the Housing Corporation with the powers and resources it needs not only to run a rigorous system of approval to ensure that we get the right landlords but also to give a service of advice, information and assistance to tenants. We can and should ensure that tenants get in a readily understandable form all the information they need to make an informed choice.
But all of this is of little use if we allow indifference, or even apathy, on the part of some tenants to stand in the way of change for those who want and need it. This is why we have provided in the Bill broadly to
1618
follow the existing arrangements which apply to disposals of tenanted property by local authorities and provide that the transaction may go ahead if a majority either votes positively to transfer to the new landlord or acquiesces, on an informed basis, by abstaining.
Amendments Nos. 181 and 191 together would leave both the genuinely indifferent and the apathetic in addition to the no-voters as tenants of the existing landlord. By maximising the number of exclusions and minimising the number of the new landlord's own tenants in blocks of flats which transferred, they would to all practical purposes equate abstention with a no-vote by individual tenants and allow indifference and apathy to load the scale against much needed change.
I would remind your Lordships that we have built into the Bill the safeguard of allowing individual qualifying tenants the right to opt to stay tenants of their existing landlord, so that no secure tenant need transfer under tenants' choice against his or her will. That is what is so crucial about our voting procedures. It is very different from the straight proposal that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, sought to portray to your Lordships. If there is the choice, a tenant can say that he does not want to transfer to a new landlord. In that case, if he has a house, that house will be excluded. If he is in a block of flats, his flat, if the applicant is successful, will be leased back to the local authority so that that tenant has the local authority as his landlord. That is the important safeguard for the tenant.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, while I totally support the attitude of the Government on this, let us not be unmindful of the debt we owe to the Opposition. It was the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—which was the crucial amendment that I supported—which ensured that in no circumstances should the situation arise that a secure tenant should be forced against his will to do anything which he did not wish to do. Although that was part of the concept of the Government, it was not enshrined in the Bill. Although I support the Government on this, I think a debt of acknowledgement should be paid to the Opposition.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I think we are making an awful complication of something which should be quite simple. That is why I support the amendment from the Opposition Front Bench. Why can it not be the case that if a simple majority of 50 per cent. vote in favour, the deed goes through? I am sure vast numbers of tenants will not wish to transfer to a private landlord, and I cannot see vast numbers of private landlords queueing up to take over the housing estates in the first place. There is so much opposition building up towards some of the new housing associations and the rents that people will be facing that I think the vast majority of' tenants will wish to stay under their local authority landlords.
But, if there are some tenants who desperately wish to transfer to a new landlord, as the Minister has described, when a large number of the other tenants do not wish to transfer, is it true that they have to vote positively against the transfer to stay under their

1619
local authority landlord? I hope that the Minister will nod and say that that is correct. They must vote, must they not? If 48 per cent. vote in favour of the change, 2 per cent. vote against and 50 per cent. do not vote, they go over to the new landlord. Am I not right? Why do we have to have this complication? Why can we not just have a simple majority?
3.30 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, are we not manoeuvring around the procedures which I thought we had agreed? I thought that at Report stage, having had the opportunity to intervene at Committee stage, for common sense and sound reasons once the Minister had replied there would be no further speakers other than those who had proposed the amendment. I know that there is a saving sentence in the procedures which say that if the Minister speaks early it may be possible for others to step in afterwards to ask for an explanation. However we are manoeuvring around that. Contributions are now being made which require a further contribution from the Minister. That is manoeuvring around a sensible procedure that we have agreed upon.
If noble Lords had additional points, they should have made them before the Minister stood up. I believe that we ought to try to keep to our procedures and not to manoeuvre round them in a clever-dick fashion as seems to be happening now.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I take it that it is in order for noble Lords to make a contribution to this debate in spite of the fact that the Minister of State has made his contribution. I understand that, with the leave of the House, he can make a further contribution. I am not at all sure that he needs the leave of the House. Arising from what he said there are some comments which some of us would like to make.
This has been said before and will be said again, but I have to point out to the Minister that many of us on this side of the House are surprised that the Government—a democratic government—should come forward with an electoral practice of this kind. It is more akin to the actions of some Stalinist clique than of a responsible government. One would not expect Mrs. Thatcher, if she knew what was going on, to agree to such an electoral system.
I understand what the noble Lord said. He said that people who abstain should not be able to nullify the desire of other people to change their landlord. At the same time the reverse must surely apply. Those abstaining should not be able to decide whether an application is successful or not.
The noble Lord believes and wants the House to believe that because individuals have a choice as to whether or not they transfer to a new landlord that is all right and the freedom of the individual is protected. I understand his argument. But I hope that he will accept that some of us believe that it is a faulty argument. It is a faulty argument because the whole status of an estate or block of flats is altered. In the view of many it will be altered to the detriment of the tenants, not only those who have transferred but those tenants who have not transferred.
1620
I shall give an example so that the noble Lord can understand exactly what I am getting at. If only a minority of tenants of a block of flats have agreed to go over to a new landlord but the non-votes of others mean that they must transfer, one could find that the block of flats becomes perhaps one-third occupied by private tenants and two-thirds occupied by local authority tenants. That would create difficulties for the local authority in many ways and in particular in relation to rent collection and repairs. Therefore the status of that block of flats or estate of houses would be affected. That is why it is important that we should ensure that a clear majority vote in favour of a proposition.
Before I sit down I urge the noble Lord even at this late stage to think of what he and the Government are about. The point was put forward—perhaps I said it myself—when questions were raised on the subject: suppose we applied this principle to trade unions in a strike ballot. The noble Lord protests: methinks he protests too much. It is a relevant point and I can assure the House that it will be taken into account by a future Labour Government.
If we were to adopt this principle and in a strike ballot non-voters were added to those who voted in favour of a strike, the Government and the trade union movement would be on a serious course. I urge the Minister to think about that, because I feel quite sure that noble Lords on the other side of the House would protest very loudly indeed if that principle were applied in the case of strike ballots.
Those are my last words to the Minister of State. But I can assure him that in due time, after the next election when a Labour Government are elected, we shall take these moves fully into account in legislation that we may bring forward.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Beistead): My Lords, I should like to say a brief word. I think that my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls was quite right to draw attention to procedure in the sense that we have a very long Marshalled List today. At the same time I do not believe that my noble friend was quite correct in his interpretation of what is contained in the Companion to the Standing Orders. I think that we are in order today. My noble friend the Minister of State spoke immediately after the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It is interesting that the Companion talks about a Minister wishing to speak early to assist the House but in fact your Lordships remained silent and so my noble friend more or less had to get to his feet. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls is right that that will almost certainly mean that the government spokesman will be required by leave to make a second speech. I do not believe that that is desirable. Nonetheless we are in order.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships, as a valedictory word, that the House agreed in 1977 that arguments fully deployed in Committee of the whole House should not be repeated at length on Report.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am at a disadvantage because I was unavoidably prevented from taking part in the Committee stage on this section of the Bill. I am concerned about effective housing management. It appears that the Government are prepared to see

1621
the fragmentation of housing estates. That may be acceptable where a housing estate is composed entirely of houses. I cannot believe that it is acceptable in a housing estate comprised mainly of flats or maisonettes.
We all know perfectly well that there have been numerous problems in many places of repairs being carried out three or four years late or not carried out at all. There is a great backlog to be overcome. There are cases of whole blocks needing substantial repair and modernisation. How is that to be carried out effectively if some tenants belong to one authority and some to another landlord?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. Surely that is a Second Reading speech. The noble Lord the Leader of the House is present. Although it was perfectly correct for matters to be canvassed as they have been, and indeed I support that, is this not beyond the bounds of what is permitted?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps if I may say so we ought just to see how the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, goes. However, I beg the noble Lord to remember the words which I read out from the Companion. Whether or not the noble Lord was in the House on a previous occasion, the House agreed that arguments which had previously been gone through should not be gone through at length on Report.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I undertake to conclude my remarks very briefly. I should like to ask the Government what advice they have received on this point of housing management, from whom they received it and how they propose to deal with it.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I should like to refer breifly to the arguments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Hylton. They are behind the times by a long way. The right-to-buy legislation already gives tenants the right to purchase the leases of flats. Already, it is perfectly possible for a situation to arise in which a block of flats may be occupied by any number of tenants with a rump of tenants still subject to the local authority. To say that a body of tenants should not be entitled to opt for a new landlord does not make sense under the present state of the law.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I should like to put one question for clarification before the issue is put to the vote because I am not clear exactly on what issue we are voting. If, owing to abstentions, a minority group decide to accept the change, is it or is it not true that anybody who has abstained—that is, unless he voted—is not able to refuse to change his landlord? If that is true then it is perfectly clear that I shall vote against the Motion.
Noble Lords: That is right.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I support the amendments. I shall not weary the House by repeating the arguments that I put at Committee and
1622
a previous stage. However, there is one question that I should like to ask and I should be grateful for a reply from the Minister. He mentioned that a tenant can opt as an individual to stay in the council block when it has been taken over. As I understand it that flat will be leased back by the council and leased to the tenant.
Can the Minister take the reply a stage further? What will happen to the maintenance and service charges imposed on that tenant under the new regime that will exist when the new landlord takes over? Those of us who have a little experience of such matters know that for a whole number of obvious reasons there will inevitably be a big increase in maintenance and service charges.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stoddart referred to the possibility that an analogy might be drawn between this provision and some possible future amendment to industrial relations law to take into account those trade unionists who do not vote in a strike ballot. With great respect to this House I say to my noble friend that I should be as passionately opposed to such a proposal by a Labour Government as I am to the present proposal.
This is not a matter of the rights of trade unionists or tenants. This provision erodes some very basic principles of democracy which are commonly understood by the people as matters which are either right or wrong. I believe that this proposal is profoundly wrong and can only harm the structure of our society.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House suggested that the Minister might feel it necessary to reply to the debate which took place after his first intervention. Let me assure him that if he wishes to do so he is at perfect liberty to interrupt me.
The debate has quite reasonably and properly extended into the practicalities of the transfer of properties from public sector landlords to private sector applicants. I believe that that is a quite proper extension. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, there are implications for successful housing management concerning whether or not the tenants are wholeheartedly in favour of the change. Clearly, housing management will be very much easier if it takes place in an atmosphere of consent with at least the majority of the tenants who are to be transferred having expressed a positive wish to be moved.
That is not just my view or that of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. It is the view of all those who, as managers of large numbers of estates which are other than in the public sector, have expressed an opinion. In particular it is the view of the National Federation of Housing Associations and the largest housing associations such as the North British Housing Association. They have all expressed the view, as have individual officers of the Housing Corporation, that the transfer of estates under this part of the Bill will simply not work unless the tenants want it to work and have done so from the beginning.

1623
That is a practical consideration; it is not a repetition of anything that has been said to my knowledge very clearly at Committee. However, it needs to be said in the context of the background to the issue that we are debating in these amendments.
I must repeat that the issue is one of almost childlike simplicity. Is it right for those who abstain or who are unable to vote to be conscripted into the "Yes" lobby? Whether it be 1 per cent., 10 per cent. or 50 per cent. of people who are unable or unwilling to vote in the elections, can it be right for them to be conscripted into the "Yes" lobby, changing not only their own position but also that of everybody else?
That is not the democratic system in this country, whether in Parliament or in the trade unions. I am grateful for the words of my noble friend Lord Murray on that point. I repeat that there is not one democratic institution in this country which operates or could operate on the basis that a minority can take precedence over the views of the majority of those voting. It is on that simple issue that the House must make a decision. I am delighted to give way to the noble Earl.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to come back to answer some of the points that have been made. Perhaps it would have been easier if your Lordships had spoken before I rose the first time.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Coleraine answered very satisfactorily the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I am able to inform my noble friend of the success of the right-to-buy policy. As a result of that policy, so heavily criticised by the Opposition parties, one million people have now had the opportunity which otherwise they would not have had, to buy their own homes. Moreover, two-thirds of those people never thought that they would be given the opportunity. That is a success story; as indeed tenants' choice will be a success story.
We have not touched upon the matter of the voting procedure. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was not present in Committee I should like to explain that procedure once more very briefly. It is not a vote on one day. It is a vote over a period of time. It gives the opportunity for those who have not voted to have the case presented to them and to be reminded that a vote is going on. So there could be no question of any tenant involved under this procedure not having the full information available to him. That was a point hotly contested by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. I remember debating with him at length: there was a fair degree of misunderstanding at that stage. However, we have specifically designed the voting procedure to take place over a period of about three weeks. Every tenant will have the chance to realise that a ballot is taking place and to find out where to vote and how to vote. Both sides will be able to present their case.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, raised the question of repairs, rent collection, and so on. I do not see that
1624
there is a problem for local authorities if they have lease-back tenants in the circumstances described. The local authorities will be able to collect rents in the same way as they do from their tenants at the moment. That will be part of a tenancy agreement. They will be able to do their own repairs to the interior of lease-back flats. And lease-back—its terms will be provided by regulation—will enable local authorities to look to the new freeholder for the structural repairs.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, raised the question of union ballots. With respect, the point that the noble Lord made was not a fair one. With a union ballot there can be only one outcome. With tenants' choice every voter individually can have the particular result he wants—either the applicant or the local authority.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Perhaps he is not up to date with the most recent legislation passed by his own Government. It protects workers who wish to go to work in spite of a strike ballot in favour of a strike.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am fully aware of that, and I thoroughly support it. However, the point that the noble Lord refuses to acknowledge is that each tenant will have the opportunity to stay with the local authority if that is what the tenant wants. That answers the point of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. The question that he posed contains a paradox. If the tenant is opposed to change he will use his opportunity to cast his informed vote to make sure that he stays where he wants to stay. He will not be an abstainer in the first place if he feels strongly about it. No secure tenant who does not wish to do so should need to transfer against his or her will. Therefore what the noble Lords opposite are trying to do is to deny the opportunity to the tenants who wish to change that position.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, perhaps I may put this point to the noble Earl before he sits down. Let us suppose that a tenant is a Jehovah's Witness. Jehovah's Witnesses do not vote.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in his reply the Minister has sought to reassure the House on the basis that the voting procedure will be exhaustive and over a period of time, and that all efforts will be made to secure a high turnout. I shall believe that when I see the Government's response to the amendments we have put down which are for debate later this afternoon. Those amendments seeks to secure, for example, that information about the transfer should be made available in the ethnic minority languages. There are many other examples where we are seeking what the Government claim they wish; namely a high and well-informed ballot.
None of these arguments makes any dent on the basic case which we are putting forward. However high and well-informed the ballot may be, it is still wrong that a minority should overrule a majority. It is not simply a matter of individual tenants and where

1625
they live; it is a matter of the transfer of blocks of housing, blocks of estates, neighbourhoods, and tenants and their neighbours. They do not live in isolation. They have a right to vote not only about what they should do but about what should happen to the community in which they live. Unless a majority of those voting has a right to make a decision, democracy is being denied.
3.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 169A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 113; Not-Contents, 128.

DIVISION NO.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Airedale, L.

Leatherland, L.

Amherst, E.

Liverpool, Bp.

Ardwick, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Attlee, E.

Lockwood, B.

Aylestone, L.

Longford, E.

Banks, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blanch, L.

Mar, C.

Bledisloe, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Milverton, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mulley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Northfield, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Oram, L.

Carter, L.

Peston, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

David, B.

Porritt, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Radnor, E.

Diamond, L.

Raglan, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Reilly, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ennals, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ezra, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Foot, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Seebohm, L.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Glenamara, L.

Shannon, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gregson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grey, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Grimond, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Hanworth, V.

Stallard, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stedman, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hayter, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hunt, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hylton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Underhill, L.

Ilchester, E.

Vernon, L.

Jacques, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

Walston, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kagan, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kennet, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kings Norton, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Winstanley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

1626

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Kinnaird, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Long, V.

Ampthill, L.

Lovat, L.

Arran, E.

Luke, L.

Ashbourne, L.

McFadzean, L.

Auckland, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Balfour, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Barber, L.

Margadale, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Marley, L.

Belstead, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Bessborough, E.

Blatch, B.

Merrivale, L.

Blyth, L.

Mersey, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Brookes, L.

Mottistone, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Caithness, E.

Munster, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Orkney, E.

Carnock, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Clinton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Coleraine, L.

Pender, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Pym, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Craigavon, V.

Reay, L.

Craigton, L.

Renton, L.

Cross, V.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Rochdale, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rodney, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E.

Dormer, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Dundee, E.

Salisbury, M.

Effingham, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ellenborough, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Selkirk, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Faithfull, B.

Sharples, B.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Southborough, L.

Gainford, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Geddes, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gisborough, L.

Strathspey, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Suffield, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Swansea, L.

Gridley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Teynham, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Tranmire, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Havers, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hesketh, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hives, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hooper, B.

Wolfson, L.

Ironside, L.

Young, B.

Jessel, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 169B:
Page 70, line 32, at end insert—
("where at least 75 per cent. of the those eligible to be consulted as set out in section 101(2) below have expressed their views during the consultation procedures mentioned in section 101(1)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now move on to do what an Opposition to any Bill must do and

1627
that is to take advantage of the stages of the Bill in order to see whether, having lost an issue on one occasion (and we have repeatedly lost these issues) there is another means of persuading the Government that there can be common ground in giving effect to the Bill.
The Minister will not need to be reminded that at a previous stage he went further than he had on even earlier occasions. At Committee stage he referred to the numbers who would be required to vote for the vote to be significant and meaningful. He said:
"applications are likely in the first place to be pursued only where there is a significant body of collective support among tenants for the change. There must be evidence that a large number of tenants want to change".
We are on common ground. The Minister has moved from the earlier wording and is prepared to write into the Bill what he means by:
"evidence that a large number of tenants want to change".
Later in the same series of debates the Minister said:
"Where there was no significant support for any potential applicant, there would be no formal application".—[Official Report, 10/10/1988; col. 661.]
We now envisage that the Housing Corporation will require potential applicants to demonstrate in principle support from at least 10 per cent. of secure tenants before being allowed to go ahead.
There is enormous scope here for agreement. We believe that 10 per cent. is ridiculous. The Minister's first words were that he wanted to see a significant proportion. Others outside the House want to help the Minister in this matter. The ADC, which has an important role in these matters, says that it "still considers that a simple majority of those voting should decide the issue."
That issue has already been lost on an earlier debate.
Then there is the minimum turnout provision. The ADC in respect of the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, which I have just read to the House, says:
"the minimum figure would need to be set at a high level—perhaps 75 per cent."
That should also be written into the Bill. From its vast experience the ADC says:
"Whilst the situation is very different because there the tenant has the safeguard of his own democratically elected council, the ADC does consider that provision should also be made for a majority vote of tenants before voluntary transfer takes place".
We invite the Government to consider yet again that although we believe they will be condemned in total for bringing forward what we believe is a shabby and discredited means of transferring council properties to private owners, we are concerned now about the procedure. I invite the Minister to look at our amendment. We are saying that before a transfer takes place, 75 per cent. of those entitled to vote shall vote. What will that mean in practice? To use the simple analogy of 100 people; we are saying that 75 of that 100 should have expressed a view. If 75 per cent. of those people express a view, 26 per cent. of them with the 25 per cent. who did not vote—that is 51 per cent.—will be counted as being in favour of the proposition.
In analysing what that means, we are saying that even if 65 per cent. of the people who vote are against the proposition they will still lose because the 25 per cent. who did not vote and the 29 people who chose to vote "no" will be counted as a majority.
What is the Minister afraid of? If 75 out of 100 people vote and 65 of those people vote against the Minister the Bill will still win. Ours is a simple proposition. We are inviting the Minister to help to assuage some of the outrage and anger which is felt throughout the country by tenants who feel that they are being given the dirty end of the stick.
There have been a number of protests and expressions of abhorrence not only by politicians but particularly by those who have done a great deal for themselves, their estates and for their country.
There was a protest at this House two or three weeks ago. I met a gentleman who lives in Leeds. We had a great deal to talk about. We were both ex-Servicemen from the Second World War. The name of this gentleman was Mr. Frederick Harrison. He lives at 12 Denbigh Heights Leeds. He gave me his war medals. They are here for the House to see. He was given four medals by this country for having helped to save it for democracy. This is what he has said in a letter which he invites me to read to the House:
"With much regret and disgust I have decided to hand back my medals. They represented to me the democracy for which I fought for six long years. Unfortunately we are now being denied our democratic rights to a vote. Therefore, to me the medals have lost their meaning".
That is what the gentleman wrote. When I pursued the point regarding whether he would still be entitled to vote he said, "Yes, I will vote and if I win in the ballot I can lose my landlordship". By the demonstration I have given he can be one of the majority who votes, yet he will be deemed by the Government and this gerrymandering to have lost the vote. There is passion, there is anger, there is real despair, but what is more important is that there is cynicism about what the Government are doing in this whole shabby, shoddy deal.
If they are concerned about tenants' rights there are thousands of tenants who have expressed their view and who in a democratic vote will win, yet they will find that their landlord has changed. Before the Minister tells the House yet again that if they decide to stay they will still remain as a landlord, why does he not also tell us that changed status of the tenant as a landlord? He will be the tenant of a leasehold property. The freeholder will be able to load on to the local authority charges which will force up their rents. What about the rights of succession——
Baroness Blatch: My Lords——
Lord Graham of Edmonton: In a moment. What about the rights of succession which the present tenant has? The lot of a tenant who remains a council tenant will be weakened.
I say to the Minister with all the reason and passion that I can command that if he accepts the amendment, which will still allow considerable play for his argument, I believe that he will have done a fair, honourable and creditable thing. If he does not

1629
accept it, I fear that he will have demonstrated yet again the contempt that the Government have for democracy when it comes to council tenants. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should like to have intervened to ask the noble Lord for an explanation. What did he mean, first, when he spoke about the gentleman who returned his medals being denied the right to vote? Secondly, what did he mean when he said that if the
entleman votes he loses and if he does not vote he loses? If he votes for exclusion from transfer he will be granted that as an individual; if he votes for transfer he will be transferred. Therefore, I cannot understand how that gentleman is denied his right to vote. He has a right to vote for or against. He also has a right to abstain but he is warned of the consequences of abstention. I cannot understand what the noble Lord means when he says that the gentleman will be denied his right to vote.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, that was not a question; it was an intervention. I shall reply to all speeches at the end of the debate.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I am a little worried and I am not a council tenant. I do not think that the Minister's remarks have clarified the position in a way that the tenant will understand. Perhaps in the regulations or in the discussions which are now taking place with the Housing Corporation the Minister will give more explicit details. However, the voting system can become almost a charade because of the misconceptions.
I have had dealings with some tenants' associations and they are asking what kind of question will be on the ballot paper. They are asking whether voters will put a cross in the "no" box or a cross in the "yes" box. Such things may make a difference when deciding whether to vote or to abstain or in voting correctly. My noble friend said that misleading information is being given. If that is the case will the Minister give the House the non-misleading information which tenants must receive?
We must clearly recognise the fact that when voting in the election tenants will want to be asked a much simpler question than that which I read in the press this morning and which the Electoral Reform Society was going to use. Council tenants should be asked to vote on a simple question. I suggest that it should be as simple as, "Do you want to stay with the local authority? Put your cross in that box"; and, secondly, "Do you want to transfer to a new landlord? Put your cross in that box". Let us have a simple question that the tenants will understand so that the ballot is fair and we are not faced with the difficulty of counting abstainers as being in favour.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, ballots are extremely confusing and I should be grateful if in reply the noble Lord will correct me in my understanding of his amendment. I understand it to mean that if 74 per cent. of those eligible to be consulted vote and no more, and they all vote in favour of the transfer, the transfer will not take place. Have I misunderstood the amendment?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I shall reply at a later stage.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in addition to Amendment No. 189 which was moved by the noble Lord, I understand that we are discussing the Government's Amendments Nos. 190, 193 and 194, and that all of those are based on the paving Amendment No. 169B.
When I discussed these matters in Committee I said that I would consider further whether we ought to have a minimum turnout figure in a ballot following consultation under Clause 101 before tenants' choice went ahead. Amendment No. 190, which I ask noble Lords to look at, is the result of that consideration. I confirm that it marks a major concession and shift of policy by the Government. We listened in particular to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and by others in Committee.
Amendment No. 190 would provide that an applicant would be unable to serve a notice of his intention to proceed following the ballot under Clause 101 either if the number of tenants voting to remain with their landlord was more than 50 per cent. of eligible voters; or if the total number of tenants who had voted one way or the other was less than 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote.
This minimum turnout follows the suggestion made in Committee in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, Amendment No. 135D. It provides an additional safeguard which I hope and believe will be widely welcomed both inside and outside the House. We have already made it our business to ensure, by adopting the tenant consultation criteria which already apply to voluntary sales by local authorities. and by complementing this collective decision-making with individual choice for tenants, that apathy alone cannot tip the balance against change. This amendment, by requiring the minimum turnout which the noble Lord suggested, and following a similar precedent in the Education Reform Act, ensures that there is seen to he no danger of apathy tipping the balance in favour of change.
All our experience with ballots suggests that turnout levels under tenants' choice will meet this test. Certainly applicants will be doing their best to maximise voting. But the amendment will underline the incentives which they will clearly have to win hearts and minds and to persuade tenants to turn out to vote for the terms on offer. Some noble Lords said that they were worried that the voting arrangements as they stood encouraged applicants to aim for a low turnout. In fact applicants will want to encourage as many tenants as possible to turn out to vote. We propose that the ballot will be handled by the Electoral Reform Society, or another independent teller so that prospective landlords could not depress turnout even if they wished. And arrangements in and under the Bill will make sure that tenants, before they vote, get full and understandable material explaining tenants' choice and the applicant's offer. I take the point made by the noble Baroness about simplicity and agree that it is a key issue.

1631
Amendment No. 189 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, also proposes a minimum turnout. But this turnout—set at 75 per cent. rather than 50 per cent. of eligible tenants—is, I fear, not intended to impose a genuine and reasonable safeguard against apathy. It is intended to make sure that as many applications as possible fall at the final hurdle. For that reason I cannot recommend it to the House.
During the Summer Recess and subsequently I met many tenants and talked to them about their hopes, aspirations and fears. What came through was the fact that they were asking, "Why are the Labour Party trying to thwart out ambitions? It is always erecting barriers making it as difficult as possible for us to break out of the stranglehold which the local authorities have over us". The amendment takes that fear one step further and into reality.
I can best illustrate that by referring to the case of Chiltern District Council, which recently consulted tenants on a proposed disposal to a housing association. Eighty-four per cent. of those who voted, voted in favour. But the turnout of eligible tenants was 71 per cent. So, had that case been a tenants' choice application, the noble Lord would have prevented it from proceeding. I would suggest to your Lordships that that would clearly have been wrong. Moreover, I remind your Lordships that the 50 per cent. test proposed in our amendment in this connection is the same as that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey in Amendment No. 134D in Committee.
I hope that your Lordships will accept the Government's Amendment No. 190 and the consequential Amendments Nos. 193 and 194 as a genuine attempt to strengthen the safeguards in the Bill and to meet some of the concerns that have been expressed.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, perhaps I can ask the Minister to clarify a matter which has worried me and also, I believe, the noble Baroness on the other side of the House. Is it not true that if an ordinary council house tenant votes against the transfer then that property will remain in the ownership of the local authority and he remains a tenant? It is only as regards flats where there is the lease-back arrangement; is that correct?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: No, no.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is correct. It is no good the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, saying "No". I have repeated it time and time again. If the tenant of the local authority is in a house and he says "No", that house is excluded. I cannot make the matter any clearer. I said that in Committee, I have said it again this afternoon. Because we do not have the same system as Scotland as regards flats and applying freeholds, we cannot have that system; so it must be through lease-back.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as one who supported the Opposition amendment perhaps I may briefly say that the Government amendment greatly
1632
eases one's conscience as to how one shall approach this whole problem. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for having introduced Amendment No. 190.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I apologise because I did not hear the last sentence of the noble Lord. I wonder if he would repeat it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for introducing Amendment No. 190 because that greatly eases the conscience of those who wish to support the Government notwithstanding the Government's acceptance of the Opposition amendment to secure that there would always be the right to resile from the decision. I am extremely grateful to the Minister.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, if, out of 100 tenants, 50 vote and one is in favour of the transfer and 49 are against, the one wins because the one is aggregated with the 50 who did not vote.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. The 49 per cent. who decided that they would like to remain where they are, in fact, as individuals, get their vote. After all, it is almost inconceivable when one reads the procedures that one has to go through to arrive at this vote that anything like 50 per cent. would not vote other than positive abstainers. Therefore, anybody who votes in this electon wins. It is hard to see who the losers will be.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Baroness has a concept of a council tenant wholly concerned, and only concerned, with his situation as an occupant of his house or flat. A council tenant on an estate is conscious of a great many other things. He is not only voting against the transfer of his house; he is voting against the transfer of the whole estate. He is saying, "I do not like the idea." I do not think that that my arithmetic can be argued against. Given that 100 people are invited to vote and 50 vote, the Minister says that if there is one vote in favour of the transfer, then the one wins over the 49 per cent. because that one is aggregated to the 50 per cent. who for many reasons did not vote. Noble Lords must have a word for that kind of democracy.
The Minister has been quite fair on many occasions in explaining that proper time, papers, documents and so on will be available. However, there is no form of democracy where one vote out of the 100 invited will carry the day with the 50 who did not vote. I defy anyone to tell me any other form of vote of that kind which is considered to be truly democratic.
Earlier, the noble Earl said that if 74 people vote and not 75 then my amendment is not valid. However, in the same way, if only 49 per cent. of the people vote under the Minister's amendment, the same applies. There has to be a minimum of 50. One could argue, as did the Minister, that 75 is too high but he cannot argue against the principle that there has to be a cut-off point. If 100 are invited to vote, then we say that 75 should vote.

1633
It is a question of equity. The Minister says that he has had discussions with people. I respect the fact that, as he did when holding other ministerial portfolios, he does not just read the documents but goes out to speak to people to see what it is all about. But his evidence is contrary to mine. I have lived and worked and continue to go among council tenants. I wonder how many noble Lords opposite consult council tenants on more than the odd occasion when they need to. I wonder how many actually live among them and discuss their problems with them. Many tenants will complain about their landlords. But when it comes to putting their eggs into a private landlord's basket they have very great worries. The Minister has not satisfied me; I intend to press the amendment.
4.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 169B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 129.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Attlee, E.

Lawrence, L.

Blackslone, B.

Leatherland, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bottomley, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Buckmaster, V.

Longford, E.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mcintosh of Haringey, L.

Carter, L.

Mar, C.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Milverton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Monson, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Mulley, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Northfield, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Oram, L.

Diamond, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ennals, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Falkender, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Seebohm, L.

Foot, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Stallard, L.

Galpern, L.

Stedman, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hayter, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hylton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jacques, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Walston, L.

Kennet, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Blyth, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Arran, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Brookes, L.

Auckland, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Balfour, E.

Butterworth, L.

Barber, L.

Caithness, E.

Belstead, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Birdwood, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Blatch, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

1634

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Margadale, L.

Carnock, L.

Marley, L.

Clinton, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Coleraine, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Merrivale, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mersey, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Craigavon, V.

Morris, L.

Craigton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Munster, E.

Cross, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Norrie, L.

Darcy (de knayth), B.

Nugent of Guildford. L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Dundee, E.

Orkney, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Pender, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Faithfull, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Ferrers, E.

Porritt, L.

Fortescue, E.

Portland, D.

Gainford, L.

Pym, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Geddes, L.

Reay, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rochdale, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Rodney, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rugby, L.

Gridley, L.

St. Albans, Bp.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Selkirk, E,

Havers, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Sharples, B.

Henley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hesketh, L.

Southborough, L.

Hives, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Holderness, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hooper, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Suffield, L.

Ironside, L.

Swinfen, L.

Jessel, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Trafford, L.

Kimball, L.

Tranmire, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trumpington, B.

Long, V.

Ullswater, V.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

McFadzean, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Wolfson, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved
Amendment No. 169C:
Page 70, line 32, at end insert—
("where, in respect of each dwelling-house the qualifying tenant has submitted his consent in writing in accordance with section 95(I)(c) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand it will be of benefit to your Lordships if we take Amendment No. 169C with Amendment No. 173. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure by using the same words in Clause 58(1)(b) of the Scottish Bill that a tenant has given consent before any application is lodged with the existing landlord. I appreciate that land tenure in Scotland is different from the English system but we do not feel that the English tenant should be penalised if he wishes to exercise his right. I do not doubt that the

1635
Government will say that the pre-selection scheme, which does not actually appear on the face of the Bill, will take place prior to application. That was the position of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in Committee. This amendment is intended to give some teeth to what would otherwise be a potentially weak procedure, and a potential new landlord will be required to demonstrate quite clearly that he has support for his application from the tenant before the application is made. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 169C and 173, to which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has just spoken, do not fit the detailed procedures of Part IV, as we have brought it to your Lordships' House. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to explain the position, but before doing so I should like to say how pleased I am to be debating again with the noble Lord and how delighted I am that the Opposition have changed their bowling for this particular amendment.
The operational design of the scheme is based on four practical points. First, voting tenants are to have the decisive say over the outcome of an application but the burdens of procedure are to fall, as they obviously must, on applicant and landlord as buyer and seller. Secondly, the Housing Corporation are to carry out approvals and the Secretary of State is to have a consent power to control disposals after transfer. Thirdly, the procedures give one equal chance to both the applicant and the landlord to set out their views on the package for transfer and on its value. Finally, to ensure that progress is made, there are time limits and provision where necessary for binding arbitration on certain disputes.
We want the tenants to be active in the circumstances in which the powers under Part IV will operate. Tenants expressing a general interest in transfer will have access to advice and assistance from the Housing Corporation under Clause 105 to show them how to turn their interest into a practical proposal for change, with the help of a willing landlord. As part of the approval process under Clause 93, the corporation will be able to require an undertaking from any would-be new landlord that he will take part in pre-selection procedures. These will ensure that tenants are always informally consulted before any application affecting them is made. Also arrangements will be made to ensure that tenants will have the chance wherever possible to assess the attractions of alternative applicants, if more than one potential new landlord is interested in applying to take over their home. An applicant must in any event be able to demonstrate that he has the support of at least 10 per cent. of tenants consulted at this stage before he can put in a formal application. Where there are two or more applicants, the one with most support will be able to put in a formal application.
It is just not practical to require the applicant to gain the written consent of each qualifying tenant before putting in an application. Furthermore, it is not necessary. The pre-selection procedure will ensure that applicants do not put in an application without genuine tenant support, while the later formal consultation ensures that the tenants, once
1636
fully informed, make the final decision about the acquisition.
I am aware that the equivalent provisions in the Scottish Bill require the applicant to obtain each tenant's consent to his application. That is so because Scottish land law is fundamentally different. It makes it possible to have separate freehold interests within the same building. In effect therefore an applicant makes one application per dwelling, be it a flat or a house, and it is practicable for each tenant to make an individual commitment at the start of the formal procedures. Under English law, where the smallest freehold interest in a block of flats that can be transferred remains the freehold of the entire block it is not practicable to require this prior individual commitment, and we have developed the alternative approach that I have described.
I appreciate why the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, moved the amendment. I thought that it was important to describe to the House the real difference between Scottish law and English law on the matter.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I am not clear how the Government know that the applicant has substantial support in the estate before proceeding.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is not up to the applicant to prove it to the Government. The potential applicant has to give proof to the Housing Corporation that he has that support.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, how does he do that'? The method suggested by my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove would enable him to do that. He would have plenty of evidence by way of written consent that people would like a change. What does the corporation demand of the applicant in order to know that there is interest in the change?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sorry, I understood that the noble Lord was asking about the Government.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, when I said government I meant the corporation.
The Earl of Caithness: The corporation will have a number of methods of checking that the potential applicant has at least 10 per cent. of the support of the tenants in the area. This could be done through the signing of a piece of paper or writing a letter. We consider that this is an important first step. The corporation will have a close check on it.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, does the Minister realise that he has not answered the question? How does he know that this is so? If the Minister says that evidence must be produced of X having signed, that is straightforward. If the amendment is accepted, the situation is again straightforward. The Minister's answer leaves the matter in the air in saying that the corporation has different or many ways. We are legislating and must therefore lean on some rule. How does the applicant satisfy the corporation that there is this interest?
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, it seems to me that the corporation will say, "Give me a list of people who agree with you-, and then send someone round to check.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I too have been concerned about the matter that my noble friend raises. Is the Minister aware that all kinds of people are going round council houses as prospective landlords and harassing tenants? On an estate that I know, all the tenants have notices in their windows saying, "Nobody is to call here about buying the property". I understand that to be the point of my noble friend. These callers are already on the doorstep trying to get their message over. Does the Housing Corporation know that? if so, it should be doing something about it. This is contrary to what the Government wish. It is going on. I am sure that the Minister would condemn it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there are also very many tenants who are delighted at the opportunities that they are being given under the Bill. They have wished to get away from the stranglehold of local authorities, but the local authorities have been unwilling to let them go because they do not want any of their empire to disappear.
I say simply to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, what I have said twice before: the potential applicant has to demonstrate that——
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: But how? That is what I am asking.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am about to answer the noble Lord. If he would stop interrupting from a seated position, I might be able to finish.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I raised the matter from a standing position also. The Minister has still not answered the question. He is being asked a straightforward question. How does the applicant demonstrate to the Housing Corporation that there is this interest in buying property? It is a simple question and deserves a straightforward, simple answer. Why does the Minister not answer it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, now that the noble Lord has stopped I shall do so. That is what I was trying to do, but the noble Lord interrupted me.
The applicant has to demonstrate that he has at least 10 per cent. support of the tenants. That will come down to signatures on a piece of paper. That is what I said previously.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I think that confusion always occurs when there are cross-references between this Bill and the Scottish legislation. It becomes quite difficult.
I appreciate the difficulties in putting too much on the face of the Bill. If these minor amendments were made, it would solve the matter entirely for the Government. The Minister spelt out clearly what the Housing Corporation will do and how the tenants
1638
will he informed. Unless the amendment is accepted, the point of view of the tenants will not be known. In Amendment No. 173 we specify:
"shall he accompanied by the consent in writing of the qualifying tenants to an approval being made to their existing landlord".
I do not think that we are going to get much further with this matter. I shall read what the Minister has said with great interest. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 169D:
Page 71, line 6, leave out ("to") and insert ("7, 9, 10 or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 169D I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 173ZA. The Minister is entitled to tell us that these matters have been raised earlier. Under the order of debate, however, that does not preclude our raising them again. Some useful discussions took place on 10th October in which my noble friend Lord Carter, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, took part.
The amendments are fairly straightforward. When Amendment No. 169D was raised in Committee, the Minister opposed it. He gave as his reason the need to keep specially designed and substantially adapted housing within the control of local authorities. The same reasoning appears not to be important when a HAT is established or when a local authority wishes to transfer its housing stock en masse. If the properties are transferred under Part IV. they will go to approved landlords, who presumably seek to relet them to appropriate tenants. Most disabled tenants of specialist housing may well opt to remain local authority tenants. Because of their disabilities, some may wish to become tenants of a housing association whose management of services they believe will be particularly appropriate to their needs. That I understand. On the other hand, others may wish to change on the same basis that their neighbours do.
The Government have used the same categories of housing that is exempt from the right to buy in regard to the change of landlord provisions. For some categories of housing—for example, tied accommodation—this is clearly sensible; for others the reasoning is less obvious. We recognise the difficulty of the argument on both sides in regard to the right to buy for housing designed for use by disabled people. I know that the Minister is painfully aware—painfully because it must be agony at times—of the difficulties of making decisions in this sensitive area. One argument for the exemption of such housing is that it is in short supply and needs to be kept available for renting by those who need it. Under the change of landlord provision it will so remain.
There are two amendments to which I am speaking. The reason for Amendment No. 173ZA is that there needs to be a firm policy statement by new landlords as regards adaptations which are required over and above the policies that the Minister has stated so far. I believe that there are some powerful reasons why the amendment should be given a fair

1639
wind by the Minister. First, existing disabled tenants who need or who anticipate needing adaptations, will want the information. Secondly, existing able-bodied tenants in making a decision on whether to transfer, will probably not think to make inquiries about the future adaptations in the way that they may inquire about rent levels, repair procedures, etc. Thirdly, the service providers such as the social service departments, advice agencies and voluntary bodies, etc., will be able to work more effectively if there is a clear policy statement on adaptations for disabled tenants.
At present, while the arrangements for owner-occupiers and council tenants are usually clear cut, there are frequently cases of uncertainty and delay for tenants of housing associations. As housing associations are likely to figure prominently among those who will become the new landlords I believe that this amendment is also sensible. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, these amendments are designed, first, to allow certain disabled tenants living in specialised housing to participate in tenants' choice; and secondly, to ensure that an applicant must include in his application under Clause 95 a statement of his policy for giving disabled people, promptly, adaptations that they might need. These are serious and important matters, and I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for pursuing them so determinedly. I say that because I believe that we did not vote on these amendments in Committee but we gave our opinion on other amendments that came forward at Report stage. That is the difference.
Taking Amendment No. 169D first, I should remind your Lordships that we originally proposed to exclude from tenant's choice the same categories of specialised housing for the disabled and also for the elderly and others, which were excluded from the right to buy. That was the principle. These categories were set out for the purposes of the right to buy in paragraphs 5–11 of Schedule 5 of The Housing Act 1985. We took the view that, if the public sector landlord needed to retain these special-purpose dwellings, and they were excluded from the right to buy accordingly, we should follow the same line for the same reasons in tenants' choice.
Since our debate in Committee, however, I have agreed that one category of property, namely those dwellings specially adapted for the disabled, covered by paragraph 8 in the schedule to the 1985 Act should be included in the right to buy. I have tabled Amendments Nos. 233A, 233B and 243B which we shall debate tomorrow and which would achieve this effect. Those amendments will have the effect of removing the property concerned from the exemptions to tenants' choice because of their effect on the definition of "qualifying tenants" at Clause 92(4)(b), which includes a direct reference to the schedule to the 1985 Act. So, thus far, we are proposing to do just what the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, wants.
As regards property covered by paragraph 6 of the schedule. I am not sure that I can go so far with the noble Lord. These are properties which have had,
1640
ever since they were built or provided, special features which make them suitable for the disabled. They are, arguably, even more special and harder to replace, than the paragraph 8 property. For both tenants' choice and the right to buy, I must, I believe, consult widely first before taking any decision to make further changes to the scope of the schemes. I hope that your Lordships will be prepared to wait for the outcome of that consultation, and that as a result there will be no need to press this amendment today. I give this categorical assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that any change to the right to buy exemptions which may result from the consultations would be followed also for tenants' choice.
Turning to Amendment No. 173ZA, I must say that we and the Housing Corporation have already gone a very long way in the tenants' guarantee to ensure that approved landlords give very full weight to the needs of special groups. Among other things, the guarantee would require approved landlords, as a condition of their approval, to inform tenants about their policies—and I quote from Section G1(g) of the draft of 10th October—
"for meeting the requirements of tenants and members of their families who become disabled".
There in the tenants' guarantee one is taking care not only of those who are disabled at the moment but also those who will become disabled. They will also have to pay attention to the special needs of groups such as the disabled in their allocation policies. That can be found in Section B(3)(1).
But, to meet the noble Lord's concern, I would be prepared to ensure if he will withdraw his amendment that the applicant's policy towards adaptations for the disabled is a matter which is addressed in the offer of tenancy terms which the applicant makes to the tenant in consultation under Clause 101. To the extent that promises are made by the applicant at that stage about meeting the requirements of the disabled in the tenant's household they will be contractually binding. That would actually have much more real significance and effect than the simple statement of policy which the noble Lord's Amendment No. 173ZA would require in the application form. I believe that I have met the noble Lord well on Amendment No. 169D and I have given him an offer which goes further than his Amendment No. 173ZA.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is an offer that I cannot refuse. I am grateful to the noble Earl for that offer. Though I have the privilege of moving these amendments tonight, as the noble Earl and others will appreciate, my noble friend Lord Carter and other Members of the House have demonstrated, very often from their personal family knowledge, how important it is to try to secure the best possible arrangements for individuals who are disabled. I am very grateful to the Minister for what he said as regards the first amendment. I am very well satisfied because these matters are a question of record. The Minister and his advisers are honourable men. What has been explained to me in the last minute certainly will go a very long way—perhaps further than we want—to ensure that the policies of any new prospective landlord are as sympathetic as possible.

1641
In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 93 [Persons by whom right may he exercised]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 72, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert—
("(d) the Housing Corporation shall—

(i) inform all tenants of the approved person of the revocation of the approval,

(ii) consult the tenants by means of a ballot as to whether they wish to continue as tenants of that person, and

(iii) inform the tenants of the implications of the revocation.

(e) if in the ballot, the tenants by simple majority of those voting, express a preference for a transfer to a local authority or to an alternative approved landlord, the Housing Corporation shall make the necessary arrangements for such transfer to that authority or approved landlord.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 93 is concerned with the qualities required of applicants and the persons by whom the rights conferred by Part IV to take over public sector housing shall be judged. Clearly, it is necessary for the Bill to say not only what qualities are required of applicants but also what constitutes a bar from becoming an applicant or a private sector landlord seeking to exercise the rights conferred in Part IV of the Bill. Clause 93(5) refers to what may appear to the corporation to be,
"a failure to honour an undertaking or to meet any criteria or for any other reason".
On such a basis:
"the Corporation may revoke an approval given under this section".
The defect of this provision—we are generally in favour of the provision—lies in lines 10 and 11 on page 72 of the Bill which say:
"the service of a notice under this subsection shall not affect any transaction completed before the service of the notice".
What that means in plain English is that those who are already tenants of this landlord and who have already been through the procedure before the incident, or series of incidents or the lack of them which have given rise to the corporation feeling the necessity to revoke the approval for the landlord, are left high and dry. They are left as tenants of a landlord who no longer has the confidence of the Housing Corporation. It cannot be right that if a landlord falls down on the job—that is the basis on which the Housing Corporation would be impelled to revoke the approval—those tenants have no appeal to the Housing Corporation and are left as tenants of this unsatisfactory landlord.
The amendment states:
"The Housing Corporation shall—

(i) inform all tenants of the approved person of the revocation of the approval,

(ii)consult the tenants by means of a ballot as to whether they wish to continue as tenants of that person, and

(iii) inform the tenants of the implications of the revocation; (e) if in the ballot, the tenants by simple majority of those voting"—

I hope that that will not raise contentious issues again because that is not the intention of the amendment—
"express a preference for a transfer to a local authority or to an alternative approved landlord, the Housing Corporation shall make
1642
the necessary arrangements for such transfer to that authority or approved landlord"
In Committee the Minister relied on the fact that tenants of a landlord who is no longer approved will have legally enforceable contractual arrangements. He thought that those were good enough as safeguards. He suggested that we were proposing a long drawn out reverse compulsory purchase procedure. I cannot accept that. The procedure which we are proposing already exists under the Housing Associations Act 1985.
Section 30 of the Act provides that if a registered housing association is found to be guilty of misconduct or mismanagement, it is possible for the committee members to he suspended or removed, for the money or securities to be frozen and for administrative transactions to be restricted. Section 32 provides that if the management of the land belonging to the association would be improved if the land were transferred, the Secretary of State can consent to such a transfer. That procedure is certainly no less long drawn out than the one we propose. I suspect that it could be even more long and drawn out. It is necessary to have a procedure, even if it cannot be made instantaneous, to protect tenants who have already gone over to a landlord who was subsequently proved unsatisfactory. To force tenants to go to law to enforce their legal and contractual rights is not a good enough alternative to what we propose. if they go to enforce their legal rights they may or may not succeed in doing so. I am not enough of an expert to know whether that would be the case. However, they would still be left with a landlord who is probably incapable of being, rather than unwilling to be, a decent landlord. They want an alternative landlord of their own choice, not one who is guilty of mismanagement or is not worthy of the confidence of the Housing Corporation. What we propose is easier and quicker than the legal redress which the Minister suggested.
I hope that he will feel able to look at this again. If I do not have the wording right I hope he will recognise that there is a loophole in the Bill which could cause genuine and justified concern to tenants who find themselves under the control of landlords who have lost the confidence of the Housing Corporation. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord and I have the same aim; to safeguard the interests of tenants who transfer under tenants' choice. We differ only how to do this.
The first objective must be to make sure that the right applicants are approved to take part in tenants' choice in the first place. That is why we have proposed to equip the Housing Corporation with all the powers it will need to run a rigorous and demanding approval regime which will make sure that only responsible, competent and viable bodies which subscribe to the tenant's guarantee as a condition of taking part are approved. If the system does the job we have designed it for, the risk of circumstances arising which require revocations of approval will be minimised. I hope that there will be

1643
no such cases. I am confident that there will at most be very few.
Where approval was revoked before transfer, that would be the end of the application. The position where approval was revoked after transfer would be different. But very strong safeguards would be available. The tenant can rely on his tenancy agreement with his landlord, which would be unaffected if approval were revoked, whether because of misfortune, including financial difficulty, or in the unlikely event of misconduct. In some cases where the tenants were in difficulty over ensuring on their own that their contractual interests were honoured, help could he available from the Housing Corporation's powers under Clause 106 to give legal or other assistance to transferred tenants in dispute with the landlords to which they have transferred.
Where the new landlord was a registered housing association, however, as very many will be, the safeguards would be even stronger. In a case where there was "misconduct or mismanagement"—and Clause 49 provides that failure to live up to the tenant's guarantee may, among other things, be taken as evidence of such failings—certain existing powers of the corporation would come into play. These would include powers to change the membership of management committees and to remove officers, employees and agents; powers to control all of an association's financial transactions; and with the consent of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, powers to direct a transfer to be made to the corporation itself or to another registered association.
Bearing these strong safeguards in mind, I do not think that the noble Lord's approach of retrospectively undoing tenants' choice transactions where an approval was revoked is the right one. His amendment states simply that, in the circumstances he describes, the Housing Corporation would:
"make the necessary arrangements for such transfer".
In this way he glosses over the enormous area of legal and practical difficulties involved in what would in effect be a new compulsory purchase regime. The legal and contractual safeguards I have described are not ony strong hut, unlike the noble Lord's, I fear, workable as well. Nor can I imagine that a ballot giving the option of a return to the local authority would be the answer in tenants' eyes in the case of dispute with their new landlord or difficulty with continuing his operations. If the authority had been a satisfactory alternative, I doubt whether the tenants would have wished to transfer in the first place.
Finally, the noble Lord's amendment would require the corporation to inform all tenants of the revocation of their new landlord's approval. There is at present no requirement on the corporation- to inform individual tenants, though its intention is that it would inform the local authority and tenants' groups, together with any person who had established a special interest, such as an individual tenant who had made a complaint against the landlord. In practical terms, I think that this should be enough to make sure that, as is clearly desirable, all individual tenants affected learn what has happened.
Lord Somers: My Lords, the noble Earl referred to where the landlord is guilty of misconduct or mismanagement. Can he say by what standards those are to be judged, and who is to do it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for enabling me to elucidate this. It will be the vetting procedure of the Housing Corporation which will have to approve the potential applicant in the first place. The potential applicant will have to satisfy the Housing Corporation as to credentials. It will then be for the Housing Corporation to monitor after that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister is correct in saying that we have many of the same objectives. We have supported the approval regime that is imposed on the Housing Corporation. We agree with him that revocation of approval before the transfer is the correct procedure. As he says, what happens afterwards is more complex. I have listened carefully to what he said and I shall certainly have to think about it before deciding what to do. He referred to Clause 104, which as I understand it is mainly concerned with proposed acquisitions, but I do not doubt that he is serious in saying, as I think he said, that help could be available from Housing Corporation powers. That may well be a better advantage than the solution which we have proposed.
I was somewhat worried about what he said in relation to notification to tenants. He said that tenants' organisations and the local authority would be notified if approval had been revoked and that individual tenants who had complained would be notified. I wonder whether he would consider on reflection that revocation of approval is such a serious matter that all the tenants of such a landlord should he notified simply as a matter of justice being seen to be done.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has a point there. Perhaps if he will allow me I will take the matter away and talk to the corporation about it to see what can be done to strengthen the situation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. We are searching along different roads for the same objective. Therefore it would be proper for me to take the amendment away and read what he has said. I hope that we can reach agreement. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 170A:
Page 72, line 22, at end insert—
("(7A) Notwithstanding that a person is for the time being approved by the Corporation in accordance with subsection (1) above, no such person may make an application under this part in respect of a group of properties to which section 102(7) below applies except where the terms of such an application fall within the conditions specified therein").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 170A I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 195. The amendment deals with the cooling-off period aspect where an application has

1645
been made which has subsequently been rejected. We are concerned—I think the Minister would be too—that the tenants on an attractive estate may be subject time after time to having to go through the various procedures which the Minister has proposed.
We are trying to deal with some of the points which the Minister put quite bluntly when we discussed the matter on a previous occasion. What we are concerned about here is the timescale before there can be any other application either by the same landlord. a new landlord or another—namely, 24 months. We are also talking in terms of exceptions.
On a previous occasion the Minister asked in as many words, "Why stop a landlord applying again for a proportion of the same properties where he has support?" The amendment allows for that situation because we are talking of it being substantially different. The second question was, "Why stop a landlord applying on different terms'?"—in other words, he rejigs his story. The amendment does not prevent this, provided the terms are substantially different. He also said on a previous occasion, "Why stop a tenant's co-operative?"
The amendment is one of the exclusions from the 24-month period. The application will have to be made by a tenants' co-operative and receive the support of not less than 40 per cent. of the tenants concerned. I am absolutely certain that the Minister's brief is headed by the one word "Accept". Therefore, in the hope of that, I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords, it is not. It is headed by the word "My" and follows on with the word "Lords". However, I agree with the noble Lord that we have discussed similar amendments before. I can assure him that I have given the matter considerable thought since then. I fully understand and share the concern that tenants should not be pestered by successive applications which they do not want—that was a point which the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, mentioned earlier this afternoon in connection with another amendment. That applies whether they come from the same applicant or from a whole string of them. The procedures which we shall impose with the Housing Corporation will not allow that to happen.
The Housing Corporation will exercise its approval power with care. There will be no free-for-all for repeated trial and error applications by the same or different applicants, even in the unlikely event that applicants might think it advantageous to make them. The pre-selection arrangements moreover will provide that every applicant must be willing to take part in a preliminary competition and must be able to demonstrate the support in principle of at least 10 per cent. of the tenants before they can put in an application. This will ensure that tenants are not bothered with repeated, unwelcome or frivolous applications.
Where tenants do not like a proposal and vote it down in the formal ballot, the corporation will obviously be cautious about an early, subsequent application. But I see no reason why the tenants should be placed in a no-go area for tenants' choice
1646
for the next two years. Who is to say whether some or all of them might not prefer another later offer?
The amendments as drafted would make an exception to the two-year embargo for tenants' cooperatives with 40 per cent. of tenant support or for an offer which was substantially different from the one already rejected.
I must say to the noble Lord that there are several problems here. First, if the test for support for a co-operative is to apply in the pre-selection stage, it is much more stringent than the one we propose for applicants of other kinds on their first time round which seems unfair. As for the test regarding terms, it is hard to see how their similarity or dissimilarity to those in an easier application can be assessed before an application is made. The applicant will not actually he able to draw up his offer of terms until after the valuation, when he knows what he will he paying for the property. The data will just not be there for anyone—presumably the Housing Corporation—to reach a view before an application is made; and even if the terms were there to be assessed, what if the tenants wanted substantially the same offer but from a different landlord?
If an applicant can meet the corporation's criteria, including that of demonstrating that he has preliminary support from the tenants, I do not see what business we have preventing him from making his case and letting the tenants vote on it. The hurdle of 10 per cent. prior tenant consent would apply in the normal way. The tenants have the ultimate safeguard of a right to stay with the council if they so wish and of the new 50 per cent. minimum turnout rule. I do not think we should be prejudicing their right to decide for themselves on the basis of the case before them.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister has given me a full—I was almost tempted to say fair— reply. However, I must be careful because I have a reputation to keep up, as he knows. He is saying that provided a landlord is able to demonstrate that there are at least 10 per cent. of the tenants at the preliminary stage who wish to transfer, that is the trigger which he has to achieve. But if he achieves that in the first instance and then there is a negative ballot, he knows that he has the 10 per cent. and that they are not likely to go away. I do not dispute the fact that there will always be perhaps 10 per cent. or even more almost ipso facto tenants on an estate who for many reasons want to transfer their landlord. Therefore some intelligence will have been gathered, not only through meetings but during conversations and discussions. It is not a hurdle for the same landlord or a new landlord to get the 10 per cent. I do not think it was in the first instance or subsequently.
The Minister then says that the Housing Corporation will exercise caution before it agrees again. Of course there will be discussions and in the light of a failure—because we are talking about a failure in the first instance—a lot of information will have been gathered. Perhaps the view will have been expressed that if the terms had been different—I am not talking about money, I am talking about services and everything else—they ought to be tried. I can see

1647
an embryo or new landlord very quickly rejigging the package which will satisfy the 10 per cent. or even an additional 5 per cent. But then you go through the trauma again.
The amendment seeks to prevent a group of tenants, however big it is, having to face up to the situation time after time. There is such a thing as attrition. Those who at one time were vigorous in their opposition will ask, "What is the point?". They then decide to abstain. Abstention does not mean opposition; it means being in favour. In the amendment we have tried to meet the points made by the Minister at an earlier stage. I do not believe that he will move. We hope, as he does, that tenants will not continue to be got at. My noble friend Lady Fisher with her vast experience and intimate knowledge of the people whom she served so well in another place already has evidence that people are fed-up even before the exercise starts.
I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. He has taken the amendment seriously, as we have. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 94 [Property excluded from right]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 73, line 10, at end insert ("; and
(c) the tenant has within the previous six months informed the landlord that he wishes the dwelling to be included within a management co-operative.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we returned to something with which I know the Minister has great sympathy; that is, that all these procedures should do nothing to stultify the formation of tenant management co-operatives. His then ministerial friend in another place, Mrs. Marion Roe, after an exchange gave certain assurances which the Minister and his colleagues fully met in amendments that were before the House at an earlier stage.
The Minister will recall that I said that we were not just concerned about those co-operatives where an agreement had been reached but those that were in the process of reaching agreement. I realise that that phrase is nebulous. It could be seen to be a device used by people who are anxious to be excluded on what might he held to be bogus grounds. The amendment seeks to make a point because when the Minister responded to my queries he said:
"We are running into severe problems as regards the question of statutory definition".
He then went on:
"I shall be happy to discuss the matter between now and a later stage of the Bill".—[Official Report, 10/10/88; col. 665.]
I invite the Government and their advisers to say that my amendment, which provides an additional paragraph (c), takes account of the bona fides of those who have begun to negotiate. They seriously want a TMC or the negotations would have been broken off by the local authority. I believe that our amendment may be helpful to the Minister. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as your Lordships know, we moved amendments in Committee to ensure that as far as possible the tenants' choice procedures cannot cut across the boundaries of an existing tenant management co-operative. The noble Lord expressed concern that this protection would not cover emergent co-ops and we agreed to consider that point further, as he said.
As I explained in Committee, our initial problem was in establishing a legally precise definition which would identify the bodies we wished to protect. As drafted, the Bill offers protection where two requirements are satisfied: first, a body has formally taken over some functions of the local housing authority under Section 27 of the Housing Act 1985; secondly, that body has been designated by the Secretary of State as a TMC for the purposes of tenants' choice.
We fully accept that under these arrangements there is no protection for a co-operative until the Section 27 procedures are formally complete. That is the one legally precise point at which we can say that there is indeed a body lawfully managing the housing. Amendment No. 171 seeks to move the protection to an earlier stage when the body was making progress towards a formal agreement. That would, I fear, to be uncertain for a statutory provision; but there is an administrative way in which we should like to ask the Housing Corporation to go some way towards meeting the noble Lord's intention.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Good.
The Earl of Arran: It would work like this: before a tenant management co-op can be created, the local authority is required by Section 27(1)(a) of the Housing Act 1985 to consult the tenants. There will be an identifiable point where the authority resolves to put that consultation in hand. Where a resolution of that kind about a proposed management co-op had been made, the corporation would be able to say: "This resolution has been passed: it is a genuine proposal which is being taken forward promptly. Although the statutory arrangements in Clause 95 do not bite because the co-op does not yet legally exist, it would be sensible to make sure that broadly the same rule applies. If a tenants' choice applicant applies for some of the tenanted property where tenants are being consulted about devolution to a co-op, therefore, he must apply for all of it. And he cannot add into his application tenanted property whose tenants are not being so consulted".
That would achieve much the effect that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, wants. It has been mentioned by officials to the National Federation of Housing Co-operatives, which was I understand inclined to regard it as helpful. If the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment, we shall discuss further with the corporation how to achieve the result.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I invite the Minister to cherish this moment. There will be very few like it, and there have not been many previously. Not only is there complete agreement on this side of the House but we fully acknowledge that he has gone as far as he can.

1649
I am happy to rest on tht basis. Even I understand what he has said. The Minister assures me that even those outside the House, whom I have not consulted of late, feel that the suggestion is helpful. He is not giving a statutory cloak to pre-statutory matters but the Housing Corporation will establish the position from the date of the resolution. Serious discussions must be taking place. We are not talking about someone with an airy-fairy idea discussing the proposal. We are discussing the formal procedure which the Housing Corporation is likely to lay down for every local authority to understand. I am grateful to the Minister. I am happy to withdraw the amendment on that assurance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 95 [Application to exercise right]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 171A:
Page 73, line 30, at end insert—
(". and
(c) shall include an undertaking by the applicant that either—

(a) any subsequent disposal shall include, as a condition that the properties transferred shall remain available letting; or,

(b) that any application to the Secretary of State in accordance with section 104(1) below shall include an application for such a condition to be applied").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this and subsequent amendments we move to Clause 95, which is concerned with any future disposals by an applicant landlord who has taken over from a public sector landlord. It is clearly important, as the Government recognised by inserting the clause in the Bill, that future disposals should be regulated by statute, because the whole basis upon which the transfers will take place is what is called the tenants' guarantee.
If the tenants' guarantee has no lasting value—in other words, it survives only the first applicant landlord who is free to dispose of the properties afterwards—tenants will have no assurance that their rights will be protected indefinitely. They will not vote for transfer in any ballot, however democratically or undemocratically it may be organised.
Amendment No. 171A is in effect a paving amendment for Amendment No. 199. Amendment No. 201 has been grouped with them. In speaking to Amendment No. 199 I should like to apologise for a misprint. The word "concurred" should of course be "concerned":
"the properties concerned shall remain available for letting".
We have been urging that no subsequent transfer of the properties should involve a loss of the rented accommodation which it is the Government's intention to preserve. I must call this a probing amendment even at Report stage because the Minister said what appeared to me to be two different things in Committee. First, at col. 657 of the Official Report for 10th October he said:
"The haste point that I am trying to get across is that these properties are for renting in the future".
Then he said also at col. 657:
"It might be that instead of renting … it is agreed that he can dispose of two or three units".
1650
I do not quite know what the significance is of "two or three units". Then in col. 658 he said:
"I reaffirm that our intention is to make sure that those who take on the role of landlord …keep the property as rented property".
We are on the same side about this. How are we going to secure it? That is the reason for putting down the amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a satisfactory reply.
Amendment No. 201 concerns a very much related subject. It is still necessary to reassure the tenants that they are not going into a new regime which could have a finite life and leave them totally unprotected after a period of time. We believe that it is essential that subsequent landlords after these disposals should either be the local authority—and we certainly do not insist on that—or approved landlords. In other words, we believe that the controls exercised by the housing association which we have been debating within the last half hour, with general agreement, should subsist not only for the first new landlord but for subsequent landlords. Anything less would simply mean that tenants who agree to these procedures could easily find themselves unprotected at the end of a finite period.
I know that the Minister will say that the number of future disposals will be limited. I hope so; let us all hope so. A continuous upset and continuing changes of landlord are to nobody's benefit—tenants' or landlords'. However it can and might happen and the Government have provided for it. We ask that the Government should provide for it properly. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is cherishing this moment. Not only was the last amendment one on which we were very close in principle but this is the fourth consecutive amendment on which we have been very close. Thus the moment that he is cherishing will last, I hope, a very long time. I must say that I have considerable sympathy with the general aims and intentions which underlie Amendments Nos. 171A and 199. We have said all along that landlords who acquire housing under tenants' choice should be committed in the long term to making it available for rent to those who need it at rents they can afford.
The first substantive provision of the tenants' guarantee is phrased in comparable terms. It is one of the criteria which the housing corporation will apply to would-be landlords under tenants' choice. I have rehearsed these arrangements for two reasons. First, to underline our genuine concern to ensure that this housing remains available for rent after disposal under tenants' choice. Secondly, to show your Lordships that we have already tackled the objective by other means.
However, I must say, even so, that I do not think that the Bill should fetter my right honourable friend's discretion in the way proposed. There might conceivably be instances, exceptional though they may prove to be in practice, where the "continued letting" condition under Amendments Nos. 171A and 199 no longer made sense in the particular

1651
circumstances of the case. There could be circumstances, for example, where the local supply of rented housing exceeded the demand, or where a disposal of untenanted property was proposed for the landlord to reinvest in new provision of a kind which better matched particular local housing need. There might even be—though I hope not—cases where my right honourable friend had to consider disposals of untenanted property or to accept that a landlord's financial viability would be put at risk. These are hypothetical cases, but we should not rule them out now.
We have, I suggest, already discussed the substance of Amendment No. 201 during our Committee consideration of this clause so I shall try to put my principal points more briefly. On Amendment No. 201, I repeat that I expect that the general policy of my right honourable friend would be to favour responsible and viable landlords who were committed to the tenant's guarantee. But I have in mind another hypothetical case where a proposal arises, in entirely reasonable circumstances and perhaps with the explicit support of the tenants, for a disposal of transferred property to a further new landlord. That landlord might be a registered housing association, subject to the supervision of the Housing Corporation and bound by the tenant's guarantee. But it might never have acquired or even intended to acquire property under tenant's choice. If so, approval under Clause 93 would arguably not be appropriate; and the Secretary of State could ensure equally effective safeguards for the tenants without it.
There is therefore no need to draw the net more tightly as the amendment would do in terms of "approved landlords". I know your Lordships would understand if I were to say that it is against the general tenor of Part IV if local authorities were to be enabled to reacquire property. Indeed, we have gone to the lengths we have to try and meet the very concerns that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has expressed, because we too are concerned about them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I know that the Minister wants what we want. I am far from convinced that the examples he has given are adequate to justify his rejection of our amendments. If he can tell me of any area of the country where there is an excess of rented property, then I shall be delighted to recommend people to move there. I do not think an excess exists anywhere in the country, unless it is simply the case that rents are beyond the reach of ordinary people in that area, but even that I doubt.
The argument about housing associations taking over as successor landlords has some validity. It could well be that it would be an unnecessary procedure for them to go to the Housing Corporation for approval in this way, although I cannot see that they would have any difficulty with it since they have already been approved as housing associations.
I accept that the Minister wants what we want I am sorry that he did not feel able to write into the Bill the more definite assurances which have been given. I am
1652
sorry that he has not taken up the offer that he made to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, at Committee stage to check on whether the clause needed technical amendments in order to deal with the question of whether there could be covenants which ran with the property and which could not be avoided by future purchasers. I am sorry I should have made this point when I first moved the amendment in order to give the noble Earl an opportunity to reply. I certainly do not expect him to reply to that now. On the basis that we are making small progress towards agreement about the means as well as the ends, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 73, line 30, at end insert ("; and
(c) shall be accompanied by

(i) evidence of the applicant's participation in a pre-selection procedure as shall be prescribed by the Housing Corporation, and

(ii) evidence of the level of support the applicant received, such support not to be less than 40 per cent. of those voting in the pre-selection ballot, and

(iii) details of the level of support any other participants in the pre-selection procedure obtained.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 172 we return in a sense to the argument that took place on the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Carmichael. We talked about the evidence that would be required from an applicant at, I think it is called, the pre-selection stage—although that phrase does not occur anywhere on the face of the Bill—showing that a significant body of tenants supports the change. The Minister said in Committee on 10th October at col. 603 that there should be:
"a significant body of collective support … for the change".
At cols. 661 and 662 he suggested that a large number of tenants—his phrase—could be 10 per cent. I would say "as little as 10 per cent.". We are raising this question because we want the Government to say more precisely than they have done so far what is mean by:
"a significant body of collective support",
as expressed by the Minister at Committee stage.
This is also in a sense a probing amendment. I am not wedded to the figure of 40 per cent. any more than I think the Minister is wedded to the figure of 10 per cent. However we ought to reach agreement about what is meant by "a significant body" and, Parliament having expressed an opinion about the ends, it ought to express an opinion about the means. Parliament should define more precisely what is meant by a "significant body". The matter is of practical significance for applicants because, unless they can be sure of a significant body of support they will not want to go into a situation where they will come up against procedures which will inevitably be time consuming and expensive for them. It would also be undesirable for a local authority to be faced with such a challenge, and for the Housing Corporation to be faced with the expense and complication of issuing approval to an applicant.
The preselection procedure is important in order to short-cut the kinds of difficulties that would arise in

1653
the application procedure, if the preselection procedure is not adequate. I hope that the Minister will be able to be more precise as regards defining what a significant body of collective support is than he has been so far. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, let us take each of the elements in the amendment of the noble Lord in turn. First, however, we should repeat the general point that we made in Committee that, although all potential applicants must be prepared as a condition of their approval to take part in a preliminary competition when requested to do so by the Housing Corporation, there will not be a competition in each and every case. Sometimes only one potential applicant, despite the best endeavours of the Housing Corporation, will be interested. Sometimes it will be so clear what the tenants want—where there is strong local pressure for a co-operative, for example—that a preliminary competition is not appropriate.
Turning to the first element of the amendment, the applicant's notice under Clause 95 will contain evidence of his approval by the Housing Corporation. Since agreement to take part in a preliminary competition when required to do so is to be a condition of approval in all cases, this will in itself be prime facie evidence that any such requirement has been met. If a landlord had any reason to doubt this, a telephone call to the Housing Corporation would, hopefully, resolve the matter in five minutes.
On the second element of the amendment, we have said that no applicant will get the go-ahead from the corporation to make an application unless he can demonstrate prior, "in-principle" support from 10 per cent. of the tenants. This does not necessarily imply a ballot as part of all preliminary competitions. That may sometimes happen, but whether it needs to or not is a matter for the Housing Corporation to decide. We have deliberately left it free to exercise its judgment on such matters in this informal preliminary stage, which calls for flexibility and good sense rather than hard and fast rules.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that point, I wish to ask him what he means by "in principle"?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, "in principle" means what it says. It means that that is the principal point involved.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl means "principal", not "principle". I am delighted to have that confirmation.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I retract that. I mean "in principle". I must now continue with the brief. Ten per cent. is a reasonable initial hurdle, given, first, that the prospective applicant will have some way to go to present his case to the tenant; secondly, that there may have been several competing potential applicants in the preliminary competition; and, thirdly, that the tenants cannot yet have seen a binding offer of terms on which to judge. We also
1654
need to remember that it may take courage for tenants to put their heads above the parapet at this early and uncertain stage, even if, as will he the case, the identities of those doing so are made known only to the applicant and the Housing Corporation, and not to the landlord.
This arrangement, that I have just outlined, based on "in-principle" support from a proportion of eligible tenants is, in our view, preferable to the noble Lord's proposal for a hurdle based on a proportion of votes cast in a preliminary ballot. As I have explained, a ballot would not necessarily be needed or appropriate. Where an informal ballot did take place under Housing Corporation auspices, the 40 per cent. figure proposed would be meaningless in a two-horse race, where one prospective landlord would by definition receive a higher proportion of votes cast. In a close three-horse or four-horse race, by contrast, it could in theory rule out all the competitors even if 100 per cent. of the tenants had voted for one or other of them.
Turning finally to the third element of the amendment, we do not see why the landlord needs to have details of support obtained by unsuccessful competitors in the preliminary competition. The landlord will know, and can very readily check with the Housing Corporation, that the applicant who has served the notice which he has received has met all the relevant preliminary requirements. It only remains for the landlord to put the procedures into operation.
I hope that those explanations have been helpful. In the light of the explanations, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for at least part of that reply. I accept that the intention in respect of subparagraph (i) of the amendment is clear, and that if the pre-selection procedure is a condition of approval by the Housing Corporation, that that meets that point. I suspect, although I shall have to read more carefully what the noble Earl has said, that that applies to subparagraph (iii) as well.
I understand the points that the noble Earl has made about ballots. But I am still in some difficulty as regards what is meant by the words "in principle". If the noble Earl means that this procedure is like signing a nomination form in a parliamentary or local election, which means that one is supporting a candidate but as the ballot is secret one can vote against that candidate later on, I can appreciate that that might make sense. But it would require a canvassing procedure which has not been fully explained.
The Government will have to give this matter further thought before they can justifiably think that they have solved the problem. However, on the basis of the assurances given about other parts of the amendment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 173 and 173ZA not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 173A:
Page 73, line 30, at end insert—

1655
("(1A) An application under subsection (1) above shall include details of provision for the appointment of an independent body to conduct and supervise the consultation process in accordance with section 101(3) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 173A and to speak to Amendments Nos. 186 and 187. These amendments give the Government an opportunity to confirm and justify what they were saying when we were debating voting procedures at the beginning of the afternoon.
The Minister said that the voting procedure would take place over a period of time and that there would be as much opportunity as possible to see that the voting procedures were fair and above board. I am paraphrasing the Minister's words; I shall not attempt to quote him. The Minister also said there would be pressure to have a high poll in the ballot and pressure to make good information available to those who were required to take part in the poll. I accept his sincerity in saying that. It would he even better if the Minister went on to agree with these amendments, which seek exactly the same objective as that which he set out in replying to my amendment on the voting system.
Amendment No. 173A is a paver for Amendment No. 186. That latter amendment refers to the form of question on the ballot paper. We agree entirely with what the Minister said this afternoon about making the ballot paper as simple as possible. At the same time it is necessary that the ballot paper should be clear. It should contain a statement of the options available to those consulted, including the option to remain with the landlord, and it should contain a clear statement of the consequences of the options for those consulted.
Since we have unfortunately gone a long way towards resolving the voting procedure, one way of doing that would be to say, "If you do not vote you cannot stay with the local authority". I understand that it is the Government's intention that that will be stated on the ballot paper. To that extent there is common ground. That is what has been done in the recent ballot in Rochford and I understand that it will be stated in the ballot in Gloucester involving voluntary transfers.
The ballot paper must certainly be simple. It must also be explicit. It must say what the options are and what the consequences of the options are. If that is not the case the doctrine of informed consent will not be fulfilled. I understand it to be the Government's intention that that doctrine should be fulfilled and it is certainly our intention.
Amendment No. 187 deals with the issue of independent tellers. The Minister has referred to that this afternoon. We agree that there should be independent tellers and we listened with care, but without commitment, to what he said about the role of the Electoral Reform Society. However, we believe—and this is where the amendment differs from the Government's position—that payment to the independent tellers should come from the Secretary of State rather than directly from the applicant (in other words from one side) in order to
1656
ensure their independence. The Secretary of State should then recover the payment from the applicant.
I should have thought that that was a principle which it would be difficult logically to deny. If one has independent tellers and independent supervision of a balloting procedure, the tellers should not be paid by one side, particularly if there is a dispute between one applicant and a local authority. Independence must be secured not only through the nature of the organisation and its approval by the Secretary of State but also through the organisation being paid by the Secretary of State and not by any one side in a dispute.
I hope that we are not too far apart on these amendments. I hope that the Government will feel that there is at least a kernel of good sense in what we propose. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. Yet again there is very little between him and ourselves, in particular on the intentions underlying Amendment No. 186.
It is obviously essential that the tenants must have all the information they need to cast an informed vote when it comes to formal consultation. Obviously, that must include full information about the voting options. By that stage in the process I firmly believe that tenants and applicants will be anxious to work together towards the benefits that transfer will bring and that most tenants' concern will be to establish how they can get those benefits as quickly as possible. But it is also central to the safeguards provided under tenant's choice that those who want to stay with their existing landlords are clear as to how they should go about it and that the undecided clearly understand what the implications of abstaining, as well as of a vote either way, would be.
I believe, however, that the noble Lord has not chosen the best place for this information. The amendment would put it in the applicant's offer of terms to tenants, the form of which my right honourable friend would be able to control under Clause 101(1). I agree that we need to consider whether some reference to these matters should be included in the applicant's offer. That we shall do. But the main guidance surely needs to come in the ballot paper itself and the explanatory material about the process which accompanies it, as distinct from the applicant's offer. The form of that balloting material will be prescribed by my right honourable friend not under Clause 101 but under Clause 102(2). It will be sent to the tenants not by the applicant but by the indepedent teller, who, I would remind the House, will operate under contractual terms which the Housing Corporation intends to regulate very closely, in consultation with ourselves, through its approval powers in Clause 93. I can give the noble Lord a categorical assurance that the material provided under Clause 102(2) will contain the statements proposed in his amendment.
Turning to Amendment No. 187, I entirely agree that we must have an independent element in the consultation. That is why my predecessor, in another place, gave the commitment that there would be an independent teller. That teller, who will be paid for by

1657
the applicant, will be provided in order to conduct the ballot and to collect and count the votes. I do not think, and I take it that nothing in the noble Lord's amendment is intended to imply, that he should put the applicant's offer of terms to tenants. That is clearly a job for the applicant himself, not the independent teller.
I have already explained how we and the Housing Corporation intend to see that the terms of the contract between applicant and tenants will be set as a condition of the applicant's approval. I do not believe that anything other than bureaucracy will be added to the picture by making the Secretary of State rather than the applicant the other contracting party with the teller, as the noble Lord's amendment proposes.
I part company from the noble Lord also on the question of who should supervise the consultation. Effective supervision of the consultation procedure as a whole will rest with the Housing Corporation. It will be the corporation, not the Secretary of State, that would-he independent tellers will have to satisfy of their capabilities and bona fides. It will be the corporation, not the Secretary of State, which will also have the job of vetting the offer of terms that the applicant makes to tenants for consistency with both legal requirements and the terms of the applicant's approval. I have every confidence in the corporation's ability to fulfil that role efficiently and effectively without the detailed involvement of my right honourable friend.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, can he say what qualifications are needed to be a teller?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the main qualification of the teller will be the independence that will be required by the Housing Corporation. The proposed independent teller will have to satisfy the very strict criteria which the Housing Corporation will lay down in order to be satisfied that the teller will be able to complete the contract which he will have to accept from the Housing Corporation. The teller will not be able to make up his own contract. The Housing Corporation will have to vet that person. It will he more than one person; tellers will have to be of the quality of the Electoral Reform Society.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down again I should like to ask another question. Suppose I were a very good headmistress who had just retired and who joined up with two male colleagues and we believed that we were competent to be tellers. Could we apply to the Housing Corporation to become tellers? With a very good background and an understanding of the requirements; would we be allowed to act as tellers? I should like to know who the tellers will be.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, yes. The noble Baroness would certainly be able to apply, but I could not guarantee that she would be accepted by the Housing Corporation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has given a very interesting and complex
1658
answer which deserves close study. On the question of the ballot itself, as a market researcher who has been designing questionnaires for 30 years, I would point out to him that it is no good having a simple ballot if the ballot paper refers to all kinds of notes on a separate piece of paper. No one reads them. The argument has to be on the face of the ballot paper if it is to be read. I know that it is nice to keep it simple, but one must put the options and give the warnings on a single piece of paper which people will read. However, I am sure that there are people in the Housing Corporation who will understand that point and will realise that forms with footnotes are filled in badly.
I believe that we must still disagree about the question of who should pay the tellers. At the very least I think that it will cause suspicion if tellers are paid directly by the applicants. However, I have listened carefully to what the Minister said about the form of contract and I do not believe that we are far enough apart to justify pressing the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 173B:
Page 74, line 3, at end insert—
("(3A) An application under subsection (1) above shall specify details of provision to he made by the applicant under section 101(3) below to ensure that information shall be made available to tenants in relevant languages spoken by minority ethnic groups").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 173B I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 188. With this amendment we are making a simple request. We ask the Minister to acknowledge that if he wants to obtain the maximum turnout possible—never mind 50 per cent.—he needs
to take account of the ethnic make-up of a council estate. All the information that can be made available should be provided in plain English—I shall not
labour that point again—and,
"in relevant languages spoken by minority ethnic groups represented among qualifying tenants".
The Minister is well aware that in general Asian people are not fluent in English. A survey undertaken by the Policy Studies Institute in 1982 entitled Black and White Britain has some interesting points to make on that subject. I shall not weary the House with statistics but certainly if our aim is to encourage more council tenants from the ethnic minorities to participate, the words in the amendment need to be written on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I should like very briefly to support this amendment. One understands the difficulty experienced by immigrant groups in speaking and understanding "normal" English but when one gets into the technicalities of housing jargon, which speaks of succession rights and so on, then I believe they need a crib in their own language.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we understand the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. Applicants will be obliged, by regulations under Clause 101, supplemented as necessary by conditions

1659
and undertakings attached to their approval under Clause 93, to ensure that their formal offer is communicated in a comprehensible form to all tenants eligible to be consulted.
Applicants will therefore be required, first, to use plain English in all written material; secondly, where there is a significant, foreseeable demand from tenants to whom written material in English is unlikely to be readily comprehensible, to provide material in languages other than English; and in audio or braille; and thirdly to provide a contact address and telephone number for queries about the applicant himself or about the tenancy terms being offered.
Applicants will be required to retain an independent teller. The teller's contract with the applicant, the contents of which will be determined through the undertakings which the Housing Corporation will be able to require as conditions of approval, will require him to seek to call back to enquire into the reasons for any initial non-response from tenants entitled to vote. Moreover, where it comes to his notice that a tenant's ability to decide on and cast a vote is affected by physical or other handicap or disability, linguistic difficulty or other special factors, he is to provide such assistance in understanding the ballot material as is reasonably possible.
We hope that this will show the noble Lord that we are committed to making the consultation work both effectively and fairly, and I hope therefore that he will withdraw his amendments.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I have to tell the House that the Minister has done it again—he has satisfied me. I am very grateful. He has pointed out quite fairly and reasonably that what we sought to write into the Bill was already in the minds of the Minister and the Housing Corporation in respect of the procedures that he intends to lay down. I am sure that those outside the House who guide us in these matters will understand the wisdom of the Minister's remarks. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 173C:
Page 74, line 3, at end insert—
("(3A) Any application under subsection (1) above shall include an undertaking that the applicant would consult tenants affected by any proposed future disposal, in respect of which consent under section 104(2) below would be required, on the matter").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 200. The background to this amendment is that currently there are no provisions for tenants to be consulted by their new landlord when a future disposal is contemplated. In Committee the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, rejected an amendment tabled by this side of the Chamber by reference to the need for the Secretary of State's consent to be given. As recorded in the Official Report of 10th October at col. 705, he said that it would be wrong for him to fetter the Secretary of State's discretion. That is somewhat
1660
puzzling because under the 1985 Housing Act a local authority needs such consent prior to a voluntary disposal. The local authority is required to go through a consultation process with its tenants and the Secretary of State shall not give his consent if it appears to him that a majority of tenants does not wish the disposal to proceed.
When the Government wanted to change the law in 1985, they did not argue that it was fettering the discretion of the Secretary of State. Why hide behind that argument and put it forward as a reason now? I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I must begin yet again by saying that we have considerable sympathy with the aims and intentions of the noble Lord's approach to the question of my right honourable friend's consent to disposals under Clause 104. Landlords who take over housing under tenant's choice must be committed in the long term to the provisions of the tenant's guarantee, including the presumption that they will continue to make housing available for rent in the long term to those who need it at rents that the tenants can afford.
As the noble Lord reminded us, I said in Committee that it would be wrong to fetter my right honourable friend's discretion unduly. We must also avoid making the consent arrangements more bureaucratic than they need be by an array of detailed controls. However, I can tell the noble Lord very clearly that I find it difficult to envisage circumstances in which, faced with an application for consent to dispose of tenanted transferred housing, my right honourable friend would not want information about the applicant's consultation of tenants and their responses to be among the relevant information before him. After all, protecting tenants' interests is precisely what Clause 104 is all about.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. He made reference to the tenants' guarantee, and I understand that consultation is taking place at the moment with associations and authorities as to what should be contained in it. Can the Minister help by telling us whether the result of that consultation will be available to the House before the Bill leaves Parliament? There is very little time of course; but it may be possible for queries to be raised either in this House or another place. We only have until next week; in two or three weeks from now the Bill will have received Royal Assent and become an Act. The contents of the guarantee are certainly intriguing and, I believe, would be helpful.
I accept what the Minister said about the points I raised. I am perfectly happy to withdraw this amendment, although the Minister will no doubt appreciate that our view is somewhat jaundiced. He seems to be making flesh of one and fowl of the other argument as to whether it suits the Secretary of State to interfere or not. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us something about the tenants' guarantee consultations.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the tenants' guarantee consultations are being undertaken by the

1661
Housing Corporation and not by the department. At this stage of the proceedings I am unable to bring the noble Lord fully up to date without having the up-to-date information from the Housing Corporation. But I want to help the noble Lord. Let me consider whether we may be able to clarify on the face of the Bill by an amendment at a later stage the possibility that my right honourable friend will want this information when considering an application under Clause 104. The noble Lord has a point which I should like to have another look at.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, my sense tells me to say no more. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 96 [Information etc. for applicant]:
[Amendment No. 174 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amenmdment No. 175:
Page 74, leave out lines 26 and 27 and insert—
("(b) which, on a proposed sale by a willing vendor to a willing purchaser of the the property proposed to be acquired, the landlord, as vendor, would be expected to make available to the purchaser (whether at or before contract or completion).").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment relates to the provisions in Clause 96(2) and (3)(a) which require the existing landlord to give the applicant information which is reasonably required for the pursuit of the application. As drafted, Clause 96(3)(b) exempts from this requirement any documents disclosure of which is precluded by any duty owed by the landlord. There was some discussion of this point in another place, and in particular about whether this reference to a duty would lead to a conflict between the general safeguards of the Data Protection Act, 1984, (which prevents personal data being released except under certain circumstances) and the specific duty in Clause 96(3)(a).
This amendment clarifies the relationship between this section of the Bill and the Data Protection Act by deleting the reference to "duty". It substitutes a new subsection (3)(b) in Clause 96 which further defines what documents may be reasonably required. The documents are basically those which would normally be made available in a conveyance by a willing vendor to a willing purchaser. This ensures that the requirement to disclose documents which satisfy Clause 96(3)(a) is not overridden by certain requirements as to disclosure under the Data Protection Act.
Further concern was also expressed in another place about just what sort of information would be caught by the requirement to disclose documents. For example, my right honourable friend was asked whether the rent arrears of individual tenants would he disclosed. I am now in a position to answer that. Such information would indeed be subject to disclosure since it is the sort of fact which would normally be made available by a willing vendor to a willing purchaser.
That leads me on to a further point which was again raised in another place. This is to what extent any information gathered under Clause 96 would be protected against disclosure by the applicant to unauthorised people. We have given this matter considerable thought. Originally we contemplated placing a statutory duty on the applicant not to disclose any personal information about the tenants which he received by virtue of this clause. However, as there is no comparable protection for tenants of other landlords in a comparable situation, we were advised that it would be difficult to create an offence that would carry a real penalty for the offender. We have now come to the view that the best way of dealing with this is to direct the Housing Corporation to require, as one of the conditions of its approval, that all approved landlords must give an undertaking to them not to disclose any information acquired under Part IV to any person who does not require it for the pursuit of the application to which it relates. I think this meets the case very well. The effect of this will be that a tenant's rent arrears might reasonably be disclosed to an applicant. But the applicant will be prevented from passing that information to any person who does not require it in order to pursue the application.
I hope your Lordships will agree with me that this is the best approach, and will approve the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry, but I find this aspect very worrying. I fear that it could be a step backwards. I appreciate that it is necessary for an applicant to know the total extent of rent arrears because that is a matter that affects the purchase price and the applicant's judgment as to the possibility of effective management of the properties. I see that it could be desirable, for example, to provide statistical information which said that there are so many tenants of whom so many are in arrears of under three months, under six months, over a year, and so on.
However, why should individual rent arrears be of any significance to the applicant before the deal goes through? I cannot see why that is necessary, or even helpful. The reasons for arrears are varied. If it is through plain neglect by the tenant it requires one particular form of action in order to achieve recovery. If it is through late payment of housing benefit or the breakup of the family it requires different action to achieve recovery. I therefore do not consider it helpful to provide such information.
I do not like the idea that the personal information on these arrears—because there are notes on the files of local authorities about why tenants are in arrears—should also be available to the applicant. I hope that in his reply the noble Earl can reassure me that those provisions will not affect the individual tenant. I can see that the information has to go to the applicant when the application has been approved. But why should it go before it is approved? Why such information should be given before tenants vote—they may subsequently vote to stay with the
local authority—is quite beyond me. I find this point
extremely worrying.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I cannot understand part of the noble Lord's argument. If one were making an application one would wish to know not only the statistical distribution of arrears of rent but the types of arrears of rent that might arise. Under these circumstances, the application or the intentions might be changed. In other words, the information might influence the written intentions of the applicant. It does not seem unreasonable to know what one is likely to be bidding for.
6.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, is helping to make my case. Indeed, it is necessary to know why arrears occur. However, this could be provided in statistical or anonymous form, whereas the amendment provides for the details, tenant by tenant, to be provided. For the life of me I cannot see why that is either necessary or helpful. It could be misleading. The applicant needs to know the numbers of tenants in arrears, the extent of the arrears, and the reasons for the arrears—the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, is quite right about that—but not in a manner that identifies individual tenants.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Trafford because he put it in the right way. I do not think, with respect, that he supported the assertions of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, or sought to bolster up his arguments. My noble friend supported the line that I was taking.
We are trying to achieve a situation where the information that would normally pass between a willing vendor and a willing purchaser should be made available in these circumstances. Perhaps I may draw the attention of the noble Lord to something with which I am sure he is familiar: it is the general tenancy inquiries in the printed form, Conveyancing 291. Under the subheading "Disputes", (f)(ii) states:
"Is the tenant now or has he previously been in arrear in paying rent?"
That is between a willing vendor and a willing purchaser. Thus we are trying to replicate that under the terms of the amendment. The potential applicant needs to know not only what arrears add up to, but where and by whom they have been accrued. As my noble friend Lord Trafford so rightly said, that will affect both his commercial judgment and management plans. But the clause would not require the landlord to disclose sensitive or confidential information about the tenant's circumstances. We can legitimately divide the two. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that it would be wrong to disclose such sensitive, confidential and personal information. That is not what we seek to achieve.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 98 [Determination of purchase price]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 175A:
Page 75, line 40, leave out ("section 99(3)") and insert ("sections 99(3) and 102(1)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 175B, 188A, 193A and 194A.
Although these amendments operate mainly on Clause 102, which contains the majority provisions we debated earlier, these amendments are not about majorities or voting. They are about what is sometimes called a clawback arrangement. This is an arrangement which is often adopted in large-scale disposals of tenanted stock. The point is that sales may take place following transfer. However, because of the tenants' guarantee and my right honourable friend's powers to control disposals they will virtually always be right-to-buy sales in the case of property transferred under tenants' choice.
It is important to stress that because the right to buy that a secure tenant has under the existing legislation will be an asset that he takes with him under the tenants' right to buy. Even an applicant who is successful in the ballot and has gone through all the procedures could still find that he may have a tenant who would exercise the right to buy. A valuer would normally take the prospect of such future receipts into account in valuing the property and the effect would normally be to increase the price.
Clawback is an arrangement under which these hope values—if I may use that term—can be left out of account at the valuation stage. Instead, they are dealt with later on when the hope value is actually realised. What happens is that the buyer—in this case the applicant—covenants to pay a proportion of the receipts he gets from future sales to the seller—in this case the public sector landlord. That might suit both parties. It may suit the applicant because it means that he does not have to pay in advance resources he can perhaps ill spare to reflect the value of sales in the future. It may suit the public sector landlord because what he receives in respect of the future sales is based on the numbers of sales that actually happen and not on an estimate at the time of sale. He can be sure of getting his due, as it were.
These amendments allow my right honourable friend to make regulations, subject to the negative resolution procedure, governing how such a process would work under tenants' choice. The applicant is able to opt to enter into a covenant which would be prescribed at the point when he serves his notice of intention to proceed under Clause 102. This is the appropriate place because it is the point at which it will be known how many dwellings included in the original proposal are to be excluded or leased-back to the landlord. This obviously affects the amount of hope value that the covenant would involve in each particular case. The adjustment to the predetermined purchase price, we propose, will be a job for the district valuer.
These are amendments which are designed to make the practical operation of tenants' choice smoother and more effective. The arrangements they provide could be helpful both to the applicant and the landlord. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 175B:
Page 76, line I, leave out ("section 99(3)") and insert ("sections 99(3) and 102(1)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 76, line 10, leave out from ("were") to end of line I I and insert ("persons who on that date either were approved under section 93 above or fulfilled the criteria for approval established under subsection (3) of that section").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I also speak through necessity to Amendments Nos. 177 and 178, if the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will allow me to do so. I am grateful for his acquiescence.
I am sure that your Lordships will recall from our discussions during Committee the reasons why Clause 98 provides for the valuation of property under tenants' choice to take place at market value subject to tenancy. In essence these come down to the fact that the acquiring bodies will be subject to commercial disciplines and pressures and so should be able to start their ownership of such property on a commercial basis.
However, we also recognise that there would be special constraints on these bodies; namely the constraint your Lordships have approved in agreeing to Clause 93—approval of landlords by the Housing Corporation. To mirror those constraints, Clause 98 (2) imposes a number of assumptions on a valuation. In particular, paragraph (c) requires the valuer to imagine a competing market of all the persons approved by the corporation at the date of the application.
In responding to an amendment moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, which would have extended the number of bidders the valuer would have to consider, I said that I was not entirely sure of the drafting of paragraph (c). I am pleased to say that after further consideration I agree that the noble Lord did indeed have a point. The market could in certain circumstances be too narrow to produce a fair price. I have therefore brought forward Amendment No. 176, which would extend the definition of the "only bidders in the market" to include not only those landlords actually approved by the Housing Corporation under Clause 93 on the date the particular application was made but also those other persons who fulfilled the criteria for approval established by the corporation under subsection (3). I hope that achieves the effect for which the noble Lord was striving.
Amendment No. 178 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, would, however, remove altogether another and very important assumption, namely that the applicant would within a reasonable time carry out works which are reasonably required to put the buildings included in the acquisition into the state of repair required by the landlord's repairing obligations. We could not possibly agree to the removal of that assumption for two reasons. First, if a landlord has indeed fallen down on its legal obligations, it, not the applicant, should bear the resulting costs. The financial liability
1666
should remain with the body legally responsible for it.
Secondly, and more important, unless tenants' choice applicants are insulated against that liability, they will not be in a position to help the people at the centre of this policy—the tenants. Those tenants will currently be suffering from the poor state of repair. Applicants will want to be able to help them but will have to have the financial margin to do so. If this amendment were approved, it would make it very unlikely that applicants would have that margin. Applicants would then not buy rundown housing.
In effect, Amendment No. 177 would disfranchise from tenants' choice those tenants most in need of its advantages. Amendment No. 178 would require that, irrespective of the effect of all other provisions which it would leave intact, the price should always be a positive sum.
I must say, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, that we gave a good airing in Committee to both the subject of negative valuations and their implication that the public sector landlord should in the relevant circumstances make a payment to the applicant who was taking off his hands a net financial liability. I trust that your Lordships will allow me therefore to be somewhat briefer on this occasion in opposing Amendment No. 178, which would rule out such payments also known as "dowries"—which are provided for in this part of this Bill under the term "disposal costs" as distinct from the "prices" which would arise under normal conditions.
As Clause 98 makes clear, the abnormal conditions which would bring about a negative valuation relate to the existing landlord's own legal obligations and to its failure to discharge them, in particular by failing to give to the tenants concerned the repairs service for which they were in part paying their rent. It must follow that the landlord should face up to the direct financial consequences of that failure.
It will undoubtedly be a hard lesson for such a landlord, but we decided to bring in tenants' choice in order to open up councils to competition from other landlords and so to gain for all tenants value for the money they pay over by way of rent. I believe that Amendment No. 178 would defeat that object in precisely those cases where the means to achieve it is most needed. It is for those reasons that I cannot commend the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, but I hope that your Lordships will be able to agree my amendment, Amendment No. 176. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of Amendment No. 176. I confess that I had not read it in that light as being a concession to my noble friend Lord Graham. I was puzzled about why the subsection is more widely drafted than originally, but I shall read carefully what he has said and hope that enlightenment will come to me in due course.
I am bound by the grouping to speak also to Amendments Nos. 177 and 178 which are in my name. Amendment No. 177 seems to us to be a matter of good business practice more than anything else. if we take the example of a private sale of a property,

1667
the vendor puts a price of £80,000 on the market and the purchaser agrees to accept that price, subject to survey. The surveyor may then say that £10,000 worth of work desperately needs to be done before he can recommend the house for a mortgage. The purchaser may then say that he will pay only £70,000 and that seems to be reasonable. Depending on the conditions of the market, that may or may not work. It may prove that £80,000 is a realistic figure but at least the cost of the repairs is being taken into account in the valuation. I cannot see that happening here. A price is reached by agreement between two people and not one vendor and a range of possible purchasers. After that has been done the cost of repairs is subtracted. That appears to be counting the cost of repairs twice and we can see no justification for it.
As regards Amendment No. 178, we raised the matter because of the support which we were given by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who, I am sorry to see, is not in his place. The noble Lord did not think that it was right that a public sector landlord should part with land on which houses might be built without receiving a proper consideration. He suggested that the district auditor may have something to say if the consideration was not adequate. He did not receive a satisfactory answer from the Government about that matter. Surely the Government must receive an adequate consideration. The district auditor must be concerned if there is any question of them receiving less than an adequate consideration for the property. I do not believe that it would be appropriate for me to drag the Westminster City Council into the issue but we know that there will be continuing disputes if there are suggestions anywhere that local authorities are disposing of their assets for less than their real worth.
If there is to be a dowry—a negative payment for the property—who will finance that? Will the other local authority tenants finance it through higher rents in order to balance the housing account? Will the Government finance it through grant? The issue is far from clear and the Minister has not clarified it in response to my amendment.
We shall not oppose the government amendment but I believe that the House should give serious consideration to our amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am, to say the least, surprised by the contents of Amendments Nos. 177 and 178 and by the explanation which the noble Lord has given in speaking to them. We must envisage the strong possibility of situations arising where properties will have a negative value. I say that, first, because of Clause 98(2)(d), which provides the obligation to put them into a reasonable state of repair; secondly, because there may be massive rent arrears which will deter applicants from submitting bids of any size; and thirdly, because in a number of situations it is likely that one will be faced with only one effective bidder.
When speaking to previous amendments the noble Earl said that that would be so. It may be that the
1668
effect of the Government's Amendment No. 176 is to have in the background a larger pool of possible applicants. Nevertheless, they may do nothing; they may not come forward with bids and there may be only one bidder. Therefore valuations will be depressed. There are three factors which could depress the value below zero, but how a negative value will be achieved I do not know. It is an issue that one must face and it arose in our debates on the comparable Housing (Scotland) Bill. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, made such points and it may be that there has been insufficient liaison on the Opposition Front Bench.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to take up a couple of points. I may have read the intervention of my noble friend Lord Renton (Official Report, 10/10/88; cols. 636 and 637) rather differently from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I understood my noble friend to say that he would be surprised if a public sector landlord would part with houses for less than a proper consideration. I agree with him because the proper consideration may still be a negative value. It would still be the proper consideration although it might not be a plus sign.
With due respect, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, misunderstands this section of the Bill considerably. The point of the Government's amendment is that, although there may be only one bidder, the price set by the valuer will be affected in a detrimental way. If one is instructing the valuer and saying, "There may be only one bidder but, in order to value the property, you must assume there is competition and a range of bidders", the value of the property goes up.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 177 and 178 not moved.]
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 179:
Page 76, line 38, at end insert—
("(7) In the event that the purchase price payable to the landlord is less than the outstanding debt on the dwellings concerned, the Secretary of State shall re-imburse the landlord for any loss by way of a Capital Grant to redeem the debt.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 179. Its purpose is to ensure that if the price does not cover the outstanding debt a grant is paid to the local authority. We dealt with this facet of the Bill thoroughly in Committee. However, without full cash reimbursement, debt charges will stay on the housing revenue account and be borne by the remaining tenants. It should be noted that it will not be the rate or poll tax payer but the community at large because the Government's proposals for housing finance promise to outlaw subsidies to housing from the rates. That can only mean that the housing revenue accounts must bear the full revenue costs.
In debate the Minister referred once again to the review of subsidy. At col. 679 of the Official Report for 10th October he foresaw:
"a measure of subsidy continuing for those local authorities that have continuing loan charges".

1669
He stated that he hoped to announce the outcome of his review of subsidy. We ask, when? Surely it must be before the Bill leaves Parliament. We are trying to seek from the Government a categoric assurance that tenants and local authorities will not lose out.
I do not wish to spend a great deal of time on the amendment because the subject was fully explained in Committee. However, I am referring to people who will remain in council houses and who, since 1979, have had to bear increases in rent of 250 per cent. No one can take the view that council house tenants are now in any way a protected species living on huge subsidies provided by other sections of the community. The right honourable Michael Heseltine, when Secretary of State for the Environment, set the procedure in motion, although he has since had a change of heart. I indicated some of the areas in the country where the debts are tremendous. People who had little or no part in accumulating the debts in such authorities could find themselves saddled with enormous debts incurred by people in council houses.
I should like to press the Minister to give an assurance that the burdens need not be borne by remaining council house tenants. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that an increase in rent of over 250 per cent. in 10 years indicates that those tenants have borne the burdens in those areas and they ought not to have done so.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will not succumb to this amendment. Again, it seems to me that there are a variety of reasons why this situation should come about. One is mismanagement of its stock by the local authority. It seems to me quite wrong that if the particular development does not command a market price which is comparable to its value, and therefore leaves the local authority either in a more favourable financial position or relieving it of its obligation to continue to spend, the Government should pick up the negative bill. For that reason, I hope that the Government will not be persuaded automatically to pick up what may well be a deficit for the local authority.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Blatch for what she has said. She has put her finger absolutely on the true reasons why it is difficult to accept the noble Lord's amendment. I do not believe that a 100 per cent. capital grant is the right way to assist authorities who have outstanding debts following the transfer of stock. As I have said, I think the case against it is clear and my noble friend has made it so.
There is another point. I ask your Lordships: from the moment such a rule was announced, what would be the incentive for a local authority to do anything to maintain the value of its stock? Surely it would have no encouragement to do so because it would be confident in the assurance that the financial consequences which it was letting itself and its tenants in for would be met solely by the Exchequer, and that cannot be right.
I should like to be as helpful as I can to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, about the review of the
1670
subsidy system. I cannot tell him any more than I told him in Committee. I hope to make an announcement shortly about our review of the system and can confirm that we shall be consulting local housing associations on whatever changes we propose.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am rather surprised at the obvious abysmal ignorance of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, as to what I was really talking about. I am not talking about buttering up local authorities. The noble Baroness makes the mistake of equating council house tenants with local authorities.
The Government have made it quite clear that eventually they will outlaw rate poundage contributions and some housing revenue accounts are now subventing towards keeping rates low in some areas. I was not making a point about local authorities but about their tenants. Is the Minister saying this? For a person who has been just above the level at which he could receive any housing benefit, who has always had to pay a fully economical rent as determined by the local authority and who has done that religiously, when property is sold and there is a deficit in other areas, his rent will have to be put up to meet that deficit? I am talking about individual tenants and not the local body as a corporate body. We are dealing with individual tenants.
I regret to say that the Minister has not given me any reason to believe that it will be other than those individuals who once again have to pick up the bill for debts that they and their families have in no way incurred. It seems to me a very strange way of doing things. In this case the Government cannot be said to have been even-handed. I hope that the Minister might briefly respond to say that he has taken that point on board and that it will receive the utmost consideration by the Government. If not, in my opinion, it will have been the most unfair act that any government have levelled against council house tenants in a long time. It will underwrite what some of us have suspected for a long time: there are powers in the Government who seem to be involved in a continuing vendetta against council house tenants—even those who have been brave enough to pay their rents.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should say that it may be that I misunderstood him the first time round. However, I thought he said that the Government should compensate local authorities if there is a negative situation and the local authority is left with a financial burden after the transfer.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, we were brought to order earlier in the day by the Leader of the House who told us the rules of debate on Report, and therefore I have no need to reply to the noble Baroness. If the local authorities have to find the money then the Government are trying to ensure that they can only find it in one way; namely, by increasing the rents of the remaining tenants as the Bill stands. That is the argument. I simply ask the Minister to give the most serious consideration to

1671
ensuring that that group of people are not once again unfairly punished.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend Lady Blatch was entitled to explain, after the remarks made against her by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, why she made the intervention. I believe that was perfectly in order, and with the leave of the House I shall respond to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, as he has asked me to do.
Of course, we are fully aware of the point he has made about council house tenants. The whole purpose of this section of the Bill is to allow tenants to get out of local authorities from where they have been longing to get out for some years.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I shall withdraw the amendment but I do not believe that the Minister could have given me a more unhelpful and negative answer.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 99 [Tenants continuing as tenants of landlord]:
[Amendment No. 180 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 77, line 8, leave out from ("section") to end of line 9 and insert ("does not give notice in such manner as shall be prescribed of his wish to transfer to the applicant.").
The noble Lord said: We are back on the issue on which we voted earlier this afternoon regarding the way of voting and tenants' choice, and the tenants who are being asked to opt out of the management of a local authority to a private landlord.
Like Robert the Bruce—if I may be so bold to say so with a Scotsman present—I was always taught that if you do not succeed you should try, try, try again. I believe that this is the last chance that we have in this Bill to try to write into it a little common sense as regards the voting procedure. As your Lordships will remember on 10th October, and again this afternoon, the system devised by the Government says that tenants who do not actually vote and who abstain will be considered to have voted "yes". I accept that the Minister has gone a little way in that there now have to vote 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote. However, it still remains that if one happens to be in hospital, abroad, or if there has been a family breakdown and for some reason or other one is not occupying the house, cannot be contacted and does not vote then one is considered to have voted in favour.
The amendment says that those who do not vote stay under the auspices of the local authority. There has to be a positive vote in favour of changing the management for that to take place. That is much simpler than the way the Government have it. If one does not vote, stays silent and abstains then one stays under the current administration.
I believe that that is simple and will be understood by the tenants, the general public and this country. I do not believe that this House has lived up to its
1672
reputation, as I feel about it, as the conscience of the country. I believe that many people on the Government Benches are uneasy about the way they have voted and I am giving them a last chance. I believe that this is the right way to go about it. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross. In doing so, I should like to remind the House of the many and varied reasons which could prevent tenants from voting. Reference has already been made to the principle of informed consent. I think it is important that we should apply this all the way through the process which is being introduced by the Government.
There are of course council tenants who take no interest in the world outside their front-doors and who do not notice what is happening, despite the procedures which the Minister has described as constituting consultation. It is difficult not to think that those who pay no attention whatsoever to the outside world have a certain element of responsibility for what happens to them, and I would not deny that. I do not think that persistent non-voters—those who do not vote in local or parliamentary elections and do not take any part in public life—can wholeheartedly complain if they find that things take place around them which are not always to their advantage.
However, there are going to be a very significant number of tenants who are simply unable to vote in a consultation process of this kind. There are at any one time tenants who are in hospital or who are incapacitated in one way or another; and despite all that has been said, helpfully, about the use of languages other than English, Braille, audio and so on, there will always be those who may not be able to vote. Also there will after all be tenants in prison; let us not run away from that. There will be many occasions when tenants, for reasons which would satisfy even the supervisor of Australian elections (and I would remind the House that voting is compulsory in Australia), will not be able to vote. Is it just that these tenants should be dragged along by the results of such a vote so far as their individual interests are concerned?
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has put the case clearly and succinctly: it is a different point from the one that we argued earlier today about the voting procedure. However, I think it is important that we should not manhandle tenants into a situation which they do not wish for and which they have played no part in bringing about. I support the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we now come to this very important amendment which I touched on earlier and to which I had to speak inevitably when putting to your Lordships the argument on Amendment No. 169A. The no majority against test in Clause 102(2) and the leaseback and exclusion provisions in Clause 99 which the noble Lord's Amendment No. 181 would reverse are there for a good reason. That reason goes back to the fundamental purposes for which we are proposing tenants' choice. We are proposing it to give new and genuine choice and opportunities to tenants who

1673
want to stay in their present homes but under a change of management, whether because their existing landlord is falling down on the job or for any other reason.
This new choice is desirable because of the chance it offers tenants to escape from inadequate management where it exists; because of the advantages it will bring to transferring tenants in the way of better services and a greater say in the running of their own houses; and because of the influence it will exert on public sector landlords in favour of greater efficiency and improved services through the effects of competition.
But all this would be of little real use if in practice the balance could always be swayed against change by the influence of the apathetic or the genuinely undecided. That is why we started from the no majority against test, which decides whether or not an applicant can proceed following a ballot, taking as our model the consultation requirements imposed by the Housing and Planning Act 1986 on voluntary disposals initiated by local authorities themselves, using disposal powers they have had for many years. To this arrangement we have added the very strong safeguard of individual choice. Let me repeat that no secure tenant need transfer under tenants' choice against his or her will.
The combination of this safeguard, which could hardly be clearer or stronger for the individual, with the 1986 Act criterion allowed us to propose voting and arrangements for leasebacks and exclusion which facilitate transfer for tenants who want and need it, while avoiding any prejudice to the position of individual secure tenants who want to stay as they are. This means giving the applicant the opportunity to become the landlord of those who are prepared to acquiesce in changes even if they do not feel strongly enough to cast a positive vote in favour.
By the time the vote comes to be collected and counted, I have already explained how we shall have ensured that all reasonable and practical steps have been taken to ensure that tenants have all the information they need in an understandable form to come to a view.
These are fair and reasonable arrangements offering very strong safeguards. Those safeguards will now be even stronger following the amendment I have tabled to introduce a minimum turnout requirement of 50 per cent. which must be met before an applicant can proceed to completion and which your Lordships approved earlier this afternoon. The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, although he has argued them sincerely and ably, would allow apathy or indecision to swing the balance against change by refusing applicants the ability to become the landlord of non-voting tenants, even though it was clear that they were prepared to acquiesce in that change. I have to tell him that I cannot agree with him on this. We are on a fundamental point of difference.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, in the light of the point made by my noble friend Lord McIntosh about those who may not be able to vote, the noble Earl made no reference at all to the possibility of absent voting, postal voting or proxy voting.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sorry I did not pick up that point. It is something I should obviously like to consider where possible. In particular, the hospital point is a matter I should like to consider.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, the noble Earl has made a concession. I think that is something we ought to look at to make sure that a vote can be given perhaps to people who may be working temporarily overseas and who may be occupying a council house when they are at home. I feel they ought to be able to register their vote by post.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if I may intervene, with the leave of the House, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I have now had it confirmed that the vote could be by post.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, we are getting there slowly. There is a point of difference here. Surely one instance of a tenant transferring against his or her will is one too many. That is the real argument. I would also say to the House that if a tenant who fails to register wishes that he had actually transferred, he is almost certainly going to get a second chance, whereas if it is the other way round he will not get a second chance. That is the difference, and that is why I believe we should pass this amendment. I would ask your Lordships to imagine the outcry if this procedure were applied to compulsory purchase orders. Quite rightly, the newspapers would be filled with horror about it. I must press this to a Division. I understand that the Minister has gone part of the way but he has not gone far enough so far as I am concerned.
6.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 181) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 89.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Falkland, V.

Airedale, L.

Foot, L.

Amherst, E.

Gallacher, L.

Ardwick, L.

Galpern, L.

Attlee, E.

Glenamara, L.

Avebury, L.

Glenconner, L.

Banks, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Grey, E.

Blackstone, B.

Grimond, L.

Blease, L.

Hampton, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bottomley, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Carter, L.

Hunt, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hylton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Jeger, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

David, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kennet, L.

Diamond, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Donoughue, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

1675

Lockwood, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Russell, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Seear, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Seebohm, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Serota, B.

Mar, C.

Stedman, B.

Mayhew, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Meston, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Molloy, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Monson, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Nicol, B.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Oram, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Underhill, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Vernon, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Walston, L.

Raglan, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rea, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Winstanley, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Ampthill, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Arran, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Auckland, L.

Long, V.

Barber, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Blatch, B.

Margadale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marley, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Brookes, L.

Butterworth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Mersey, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Milverton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carnock, L.

Morris, L.

Clinton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Munster, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Orkney, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Piatt of Writtle, B.

Craigton, L.

Radnor, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Reay, L.

Croft, L.

Renton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Renwick, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rochdale, V.

Dundee, E.

Rodney, L.

Elibank, L.

St. Davids, V.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Southborough, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gisborough, L.

Suffield, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Torrington, V.

Gridley, L.

Trafford, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hives, L.

Vinson, L.

Holderness, L.

Westbury, L.

Hooper, B.

Wise, L.

Killearn, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Kimball, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.5 p.m.
Clause 100 [Tenancies granted after relevant date]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 77. line 41, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (4)(aa) below").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 182 I wish to speak also to
1676
Amendment No. 183. These amendments would allow the regulations made by my right honourable friend under Clause 100 to exclude specified descriptions of licences or tenancies from its provisions.
There are at least three such descriptions of tenancies where the requirements described in subsections (2), (3) and (4) will not be appropriate. The first two are the leases which will come into existence where, after the relevant date, a secure tenant completes a right-to-buy purchase of his flat, and where such a tenant completes the purchase of a shared-ownership lease. The third is where a landlord wishes to relet on a new secure tenancy a flat which is in a building covered by the application but which was occupied on the relevant date by a secure tenant who, under Clause 92(4), was not a qualifying tenant because the flat was within certain categories of special property for the elderly and others excluded from the right to buy by Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985.
These are the only cases which we currently have in mind, but the amendment proposes a regulation-making power which could accommodate other exemptions from Clause 100 should the need for them become apparent in practice. This is a sensible and prudent amendment which I commend to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 78, line 13, at end insert—
("(aa) excluding from the tenancies and licences to which this section applies a tenancy or licence of a description specified in the regulations").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 184:
Leave out Clause 100.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I only half apologise for coming back to this matter having raised it in Committee. The Minister appeared not fully to understand the implications of the amendment that we then moved. His reply contained statements that I wish to challenge now in public. He suggested that the landlord—in other words, the local authority—might try to fill empty flats after
receiving an application for the blocks that contained them and thereby influence the decision taken about the transfer to a new landlord. However, this cannot happen. After the date of receipt of the application, new tenants are not entitled to participate in the consultation process. That basic objection to the amendment moved in Committee does not stand up.
The substantive issue remains. If it is not possible for the local authority to fill empty flats in the period of consultation between the date of application and the date when the whole deal goes through—the Minister was unable to deny this when directly
challenged in Committee—one runs the risk that there will be a greater number of empty properties than there would otherwise be. Properties that could have been filled were it not for the application will not be filled until the deal has gone through.
The Government make a great deal of play about empty properties in the control of local authorities. When we challenge them on this by proposing penalties on local authorities and other landlords for having empty properties, they run away from the consequence of their attitude. I do not take that attitude too seriously. I take the matter of empty property seriously, but I do not take seriously the Government's political attempts to make capital out of it.
The Minister was unable to deny that there will be more empty properties if the Bill goes through unamended than would otherwise be the case, and that must be so. We are proposing that there should be a continuation of the local authority's policy of filling vacancies in the properties which are the subject of an application and that those tenancies, until the date of the completion of the deal, should be secure. In other words, the tenants whom the applicant takes over on the vesting date, if that is the correct word, should all be on the same footing. There should not be first- and second-class tenants. This seems to us to be common sense. I cannot think why the Government have continued to resist a proposal which is so strongly in line with their own policies and with the claims that they are making about local authority housing. I beg to move.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, there is quite considerable consideration before the first step of the application is taken. Though it may apply to applications, every public sector body and local authority would know that this step was coming. What my noble friend the Minister said may well have been correct. The application is not going to be the first step taken by any putative private landlord. The other point made by the noble Lord would be covered by the regulations
The Earl of Caithness:My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that very helpful contribution because I believe it begins to put the matter into proper perspective. Clause 100 fills a gap in the procedures of Part IV. It also provides for a necessary defence against obstructive action which, I regret to say, some landlords might be tempted to try once it was clear that an application was going ahead. There will be in some applications, dwelling houses vacant on the relevant date. There will be others which, for a variety of reasons fall vacant between the formal start of an application and its completion. The landlord, rightly, should be able to make use of his vacant properties during that period by granting tenancies or licences to occupy such houses or, more frequently, flats. Clause 100 is needed to make provision with respect to those tenancies or licences.
The issue of any such tenancy or licence could, through error, omission or perhaps sheer malice, put secure tenants into properties which the applicant was entitled to take over with vacant possession. Moreover, if they were vacant on the relevant date that would have been one of the factors taken into account in setting the price that he would have had to pay for them.
1678
Even when the effects of the powers in Clause 104 over disposal and of the tenants' guarantee and its precepts about continued letting were taken into account, that would tend to increase the price. That cannot be right and the clause would ensure that it could not happen. I believe that the clause strikes a balance. It allows a landlord to go on using his property while the tenants' choice procedures take their course. But it ensures that the applicant does not end up with an unfair burden of secure tenants. It means that no obstructive landlord can pick an otherwise largely empty block of flats in order to undermine a successful application.
It equally well permits the landlord and the potential applicant to agree that, if the applicant wants it, the tenancy can be of a more permanent type than I have mentioned. As we have been at pains to stress, the Housing Corporation will be looking at the landlords who are in the long-term renting business.
7.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course I am not satisfied with that answer. It does not deal with the fact that there will continue to be voids. The suggestion that there might be agreement between the applicant and the landlord goes entirely against the paranoia of the Government in thinking continually that the landlords8-—in other words, the local authorities—are going to be obstructive all the time. If the local authorities are being obstructive, what confidence does the Minister have that there will be the kind of agreement that he talks about? What we shall have is more empty properties and, if not, we are going to have quite unsatisfactory temporary licences. That is not a suitable way in which to treat housing management. It means that there is a very undesirable interregnum between the local authority regime and that introduced by the applicant. The complication and the length of it is a matter for the Government to secure by regulation. I am quite sure that they will wish to see that it is as short a period as possible. Nothing that the Minister has said has convinced me that there will not be a period in which housing management is in effect in abeyance and during which an effective allocations policy is no longer possible.
It will be even worse if at the end of the day the application does not go through. Then we shall have a backlog of properties to be filled. I have no doubt that Ministers, when they speak at Conservative party conferences and are not subject to parliamentary challenge, will go on making the absurd accusations which they continue to make about local authorities being derelict in their duty as regards empty properties. We have challenged the Government on that matter before and they have backed away from it. We are challenging them on it now. It is now clear that the Government are prepared to countenance an artificial increase in empty properties owned by local authorities. It is unsatisfactory and it is only with the greatest reluctance that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 101 [Consultations by applicant]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 185
Page 78, line 43, leave out ("relevant date") and insert ("date on which the period referred to in (1) above commences").
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment refers to what happens after the application date. On this occasion we are referring to tenants who move out of the property rather than those who move in. I suppose we are criticising the rigidity of the concept of the relevant date which is contained in Clauses 100 and 101. In the previous amendment we accepted that those who come in after the relevant date should not be allowed to vote. Now we are saying that it is an absurdity that qualifying tenants resident at the relevant date can vote even if they move somewhere else or if they exercise the right to buy.
If we are to have effective elections we have to have an effective electoral system. We clearly do not have that after the decisions taken in your Lordships' House. We have to have an effective and relevant electoral register. The electoral register for a vote, a ballot and for consultation on transfer from one landlord to another must be for those tenants who are to be transferred. How can it be for those tenants who have in the meantime decided not to stay in the area or not to become tenants at all?
I find it difficult to say anything further about this subject because the case is so clear and obvious that the Government are wrong on this matter. What answer do they have? Are they seriously suggesting that, having been reminded of the issues, those who are not going to take part in the transfer should have a vote in the consultation process? I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we oppose the amendment because at best it is unnecessary, and at worst it is not acceptable. As the noble Lord made clear, the objective of the amendment is to extend the category of tenants who on the face of the Bill are given the right to be consulted under Clause 101. It would extend that category provided for in subsection 2(a) to cover qualifying tenants or long leaseholders who had not been in occupation on the relevant date, or, if appropriate, the date on which their home was added to the application under Clause 97(1)(d). We have made it clear all along that we recognise the need to adjust at the margins the range of tenants who are to be consulted under Clause 101, and within that group those whose vote would determine whether or not their home was to transfer. Following the amendment to which your Lordships agreed in Committee, subsection (2) of Clause 101 now enables precisely that to happen.
Under paragraph (a) the applicant must consult the main categories of tenants who will be affected—namely, qualifying, secure tenants and long leaseholders in occupation at the relevant date. Under paragraph (b) he must consult tenants of flats who have been prescribed under Clause 99(2)(b) as able to decide whether or not to have their homes individually leased back to their existing
Landlords —for example, people who succeed to the
tenancies of qualifying tenants after the relevant date.
1680
And under paragraph (c), my right honourable friend can prescribe in regulations other categories of tenants who must be consulted and given a say in the collective decision about the fate of the application as a whole. We shall use those powers to prescribe the additional descriptions of tenants who should indeed be consulted—for example, lawful successors to qualifying tenants who should have the same rights under Clauses 99 and 101 as their predecessors. Furthermore, we shall ensure that tenants whose homes are added at the suggestion of a landlord under Clause 97(1)(d) have the appropriate rights.
This is a carefully constructed set of provisions. It places the core of the electorate (if I may use that term) on the face of the Bill, but allows for the flexibility needed to ensure that each special case outside that core can be suitably treated. Amendment No. 185 would not easily sit with that structure; and from the examples we have given it should be clear that we intend to achieve many of its goals by the use of the powers already provided for. But we detect that the amendment might be an attempt to undo some of the effects of Clause 100, which as your Lordships will recall, we have placed in the Bill to prevent a hostile landlord from packing vacancies arising at or after the receipt of an application in order to prejudice the outcome of the application. We shall not rehearse the arguments already deployed on the need for the clause; but it rightly prevents such late tenancies from being secure tenancies. It would not be appropriate for those tenants to be able to decide the outcome of an application. If that were the intention of Amendment No. 185, I would have to speak more strongly against it.
I hope that we have shown to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that we have put together a considered package to cover all eventualities in an appropriate manner. We hope that he will not press his amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in his reply the noble Earl has demonstrated that the Government have put together a package which will do what they want it to do. It can be adapted to meet any political or administrative objective. The noble Earl is saying that the basic electorate—if I may continue to use the analogy —is established by statute but that the Government can do what they like by regulation to add or subtract from it. If the Representation of the People Act were being considered in another place and these proposals were put forward for parliamentary or local government elections, any government who proposed them would find their proposals tossed out on their ears.
It is not good enough for matters of this kind, which affect people's futures, livelihoods and homes, to be dealt with by a mixture of statutory provision and regulation. I am not reassured by the noble Earl's attempts to say that the Government will do something about it in regulations. It is significantly worse than anything I had expected, and the justification for the amendment seems much stronger now than when I originally moved it. The Government have not thought this through. They are hiding behind regulation in the face of an

1681
administrative and logical problem which they have not thought out properly.
It is a most unsatisfactory reply. I hope that between now and another stage the Minister will read his speech carefully and write to me saying whether he really thinks that the position he has put forward can be rationally defended. I do not think that this is a matter on which I should seek your Lordships' opinion. I am sorry that the apparent amity and common purpose of this afternoon should disappear so rapidly in the face of what is no more than obscurantism by the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 186 to 188 not moved.]
Clause 102 [Notice by applicant of intention to proceed]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 188A
Page 79, line 3, at end insert ("and in that notice the applicant, in such circumstances as may he prescribed, may inform the landlord—

(a) that he wishes to enter into a prescribed convenant to make payments to the landlord on the occasion of any prescribed disposal (occurring after the date of the acquisition) of a dwelling-house comprised in the properly to be acquired: and

(b) that he requires the value of that covenant to be taken into account in reducing the price which would otherwise he payable for the property to be acquired ")

.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 189 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 79, line 5, leave out from("if") to ("of") in line 6 and insert ("in response to the consultation under section 101 above,—

(a) less than 50 per cent. of the tenants to whom that section applies have given notice of their wishes in such manner as may he prescribed; or

(b) the number of tenants to whom that section applies who have given notice in that manner").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 191 not moved.]
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 192:
Page 79, leave out lines 9 to 14 and insert—
("(3) The provisions to be prescribed in section 101(1) above shall include provisions which will determine what should happen to the application where there is a disagreement between joint tenants or between the tenant and his spouse or where one or more joint tenants or a spouse is away from home during the period of consultation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to require the Secretary of State to make regulations to decide what will happen to the home of people who cannot agree about a transfer, or where one or more of the parties is away from home. The Government must sort out their policy on this issue. They have said that members of each household must make up their minds collectively on what should happen to their home. Let us suppose that they cannot make up their minds, which is not unusual in families. The result of a failure to agree may be that the household will not vote at all. Will this be counted as a "yes" vote?
Each party to a joint tenancy has a legal interest in the dwelling. A non-tenant spouse has an interest as a possible future successor. The interests of these people must be protected. I shall put some examples of what may arise in order to present the Minister with an opportunity to give the Government's thinking on this matter.
What will happen when a husband and wife cannot agree? That is surely not unknown, even if the au pair girl mentioned the other evening by the Minister is not involved.
The Earl of Caithness: Mentioned by the noble Lord!
Lord Dean of Beswick: What will happen when one joint tenant is abroad and cannot be contacted by the other joint tenant? He may have left the incumbent with the responsibility for paying the rent. A woman suffering domestic violence may temporarily have left the matrimonial home. The husband could be suffering domestic violence. A woman may have gone home to mother or be living temporarily in a hostel for battered wives. What will happen in the case of joint tenants who share facilities but do not live as one family? These are everyday happenings and must be taken into account. We should like to hear the Government's thinking on these matters. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, Amendment No. 192 would require the Secretary of State to prescribe provisions governing what would happen when joint tenants or non-tenant spouses disagreed about how their household vote should be cast on a tenants' choice proposal. Votes cast in response to consultation under Clause 101 will have two effects. Taken together they will determine whether the applicant is able to complete the acquisition. Individually they will determine the future of individual qualifying tenants' tenancies. Those qualifying tenants who vote to remain with their present landlord will either have their homes excluded from the requisition altogether, in the case of houses, or, in the case of flats, have them leased back to their existing landlord by the applicant. That individual element in the vote means that there must—indeed there can—be only one vote per household.
It must be up to the members of families or households, whether they are spouses or joint tenants, to reach agreement between themselves on how to vote on a tenants' choice proposal. I accept that sometimes it will be easier than others. But I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the circumstances will be no different from those surrounding many other major decisions which families and households of joint tenants have to deal with, and deal with every day.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, mentions especially joint tenants or spouses who might be away from home during the consultation period. In Committee I dealt with how we intend to see that all tenants get the opportunity, and the information they need, to vote. The formal consultation stage will not creep up on tenants

1683
unawares. They will know clearly that it is coming. Where absences are foreseeable, we shall ensure that arrangements can be made for temporarily absent tenants nevertheless to receive the applicants' offer and the ballot material from an independent teller.
Where absences are unforeseen, it will be possible to make special arrangements during the ballot period itself, whether the absences come to light as a result of callback by the independent teller or as a result of an approach to the teller by the tenant. We shall consult in detail on these and the other arrangements which we propose for the consultation procedures later in the year.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Obviously there is some difficulty in the matter, but I do not wish to delay the proceedings any longer. It is almost like opening up a can of worms. I ask the Government what would happen, for instance, where the husband is the tenant and votes for moving but the wife says no. Does the wife then register as homeless on the transfer of the property? Does the local authority, the potential buyer or the potential person who will take control of the property then have to go through a court procedure?
As I said, it is something of a can of worms. I do not know whether the Government have realised that such a situation could arise and might well arise. I conclude by saying that I should like the Minister, if the Government have not already thought about it, to consider the matter as they may have to come back to it at a later stage. I am sure that such a case would not happen in isolation. As I said, if the spouse who is the tenant is determined to move, while the other spouse, the other half of the marriage, is adamant that he or she will not, it could create many problems for the Government. However, on the basis that the Minister will take the matter on board and reconsider the situation to see what can be done in such a case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. It has been agreed through the usual channels that we shall resume consideration of the Housing Bill immediately after the Church of England Measure has been dealt with.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Church of England (Pensions) Measure
7.33 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark The Lord Bishop of Southwark rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, this Measure is the latest in a series of measures which have been presented in recent years and which are designed to modernise and improve the pension provisions for ministers in the Church of England. I
1684
am old enough to recall a very different situation in which it was not legally possible to retire until one was 70 years of age. Even then it was often impossible for a retiring minister to afford adequate housing. Now, on completion of 37 years' service and on retirement at the age of 65, a full pension of £5,330—that is, two-thirds of the minimum stipend payable in the previous year—is awarded to those of incumbent status and others such as deacons, deaconesses and licensed lay workers.
The sum payable is reviewed annually and increased each April by at least the same proportion as the previous year's increase in the national minimum stipend for incumbents. In addition, a tax-free capital sum is also payable on retirement to help with the purchase of a home. At present this is just over £14,000. On top of that, low interest loans are available to enable pensioners to enter into what amounts to a share equity scheme, easing still further the difficult transition into retirement for those who have lived in tied accommodation during their ministry. I should add that the pensions board also makes available homes for rent and sheltered and residential accommodation for the more frail.
Widows, who form a substantial proportion of the Church's pensioners, are entitled to a survivorship pension equal to two-thirds of the pension that their husband was receiving—or would have received—and also a lump sum of three times the previous year's national minimum stipend. Children under the age of 18 also receive a pension as of right. This is usually one-sixth of their late parent's entitlement. Discretionary help can be given, and is in cases of particular distress or difficulty.
I think it is worth pointing out that the provisions are in fact generous compared with many other schemes. It all feels very different from 1952, and I am relieved that I shall be retiring in the 1990s and not in the first half of this century.
Against that background I mention briefly a few of the changes which the Measure will effect. First, it will rationalise the pension arrangements for clergy, which includes deacons, deaconesses—of whom there are now relatively few—and licensed lay workers. Secondly, it makes many small but useful improvements to the scheme, making it clearer and easier to understand and administer. Thirdly, it implements enhancements which result from recent state legislation on occupational pension schemes. Fourthly, it enables changes of details in the pension and housing arrangements to be made by regulation rather than by Measure. Fifthly, it updates references to other legislation and el iminates points which are no longer relevant.
Your Lordships may have noted that there is one matter upon which the Ecclesiastical Committee reported with regret—to use its precise phrase. The Measure does not contain any provision for the former wives of members of the clergy whose marriages have been dissolved. Of course that is a well-known difficulty with almost all existing pension arrangements. The problem was also raised at the time when the Measure was passing through the General Synod. At that time the revision committee of the General Synod made two points.
First, it would be, it said, unsatisfactory for the committee to decide on a particular course without knowing what Parliament was likely to do. It was understood then, and is still understood, that this important matter—sometimes most distressing in its bearing on individuals affected by the break-up of their marriage—was the subject of an investigation by the Lord Chancellor's Department. I hope that I am not speaking out of order when I express the hope that we shall soon hear word of its progress.
Secondly, it was noted that under present legislation the pensions board already has the discretionary power to provide help with housing and also to make payments to dependants, who might include a former spouse in receipt of maintenance payments. Children under 18 are already covered by separate provision which operates regardless of the state of the marriage.
The report of the Ecclesiastical Committee contains careful notes on all the clauses of the Measure contained in the report of the General Synod Legislative Committee which is appended to that of the Ecclesiastical Committee. I believe that they show that the Measure will bring welcome improvements to a scheme which, in my judgment, is already good and whose provisions will now apply to almost everyone in stipendary, licensed or accredited ministry in the Church of England on an equal footing. I therefore commend the Measure to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Southwark.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will he grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark for introducing his Motion and explaining the Measure. I shall make two rather general comments about the Measure before proceeding to three more specific questions.
The first comment is that we are of course glad that there is a measure of rationalisation in clergy pension arrangements. But we note that it is a move from a partially funded pension scheme to a wholly unfunded pension scheme in the sense that the Church Commissioners are to be relied upon and are responsible for meeting their obligations under the Measure. However, in the case of some people such as church workers who had a church workers' pension fund for themselves, that was an obligation which was set up specifically for church workers and was funded by itself. That is a fairly minor comment.
Secondly, we note that the level of pensions which are to be paid to clergy—I do not wish to embarrass the right reverend Prelate—are most extraordinary by any standards. If your Lordships look at Schedule 1 of the Measure you will see that the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, after a lifetime of service, will receive a pension of £10,660 per annum; and that diocesan bishops will receive a pension of £7,995 per annum. I recognise that those who enter the service of God have to abjure the service of Mammon. Nevertheless, it seems to me, looking at the matter
1686
objectively, that those who have served a lifetime in offices in the Church of England and also offices in the established Church and who have a responsibility to the community at large should be entitled to pensions which are somewhat in excess of the figures that I have quoted from Schedule 1. However, I accept that that is not a point on which your Lordships' House can properly comment. It is a point perhaps to which the Church Commissioners should address themselves. I do not wish to put the right reverend Prelate in an embarrassing position by suggesting that his pension, which he will no doubt rightly deserve when he retires, will be inadequate.
The three specific points upon which I would ask the right reverend Prelate to comment are these. First, he mentioned in his introduction that at the moment there is no provision in the Measure for divorced wives of clergy; in other words, where a marriage, as he said, had been dissolved. What progress does he think we can make to resolve that especially difficult question? It was a matter, as he rightly said, which was discussed at some length and, if I may say so, with some feeling within the Ecclesiastical Committee when the Measure came before it. We should like to feel that the right reverend Prelate can assure us that the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor's Committee will be pushed a bit by the Church of England to ensure that some provision is made in that delicate area.
My second question relates to those who, for one reason or another, leave the ministry before they are entitled to a pension. As I understand it, and I hope that the right reverend Prelate will confirm my understanding, not only is there provision for deferred pension but there is also provision for transfer of the monetary value of the deferred pension to another scheme should that person, having left the ministry, decide to take another job and join another scheme.
My last question relates to what I would broadly refer to as personal pensions. Are clergy, and those who are covered by the Measure, entitled to take the advantage that others can take who belong to schemes of this nature and take out their own personal pension plans in addition to being members of the scheme, which is compulsory by virtue of the fact that they are clergy? Are they allowed to make additional voluntary contributions, if I may use the jargon which comes from the pension language? Are they allowed to make provision for themselves in one form or another which would be in addition to their rights under the scheme?
I should be most grateful if the right reverend Prelate could respond to the questions that I have asked and of which I have given him notice.
In general we, like the Ecclesiastical Committee, find the Measure sensible, but having said that, I come back to the point I made at the beginning, that, in any reasonable language, the type of pensions that the Church is offering to archbishops, bishops and clergy on retirement would not be acceptable in any business circles. The Church Commissioners would be well advised to bear that point in mind.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the questions and interesting comments of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I believe that he was just making a general comment about the fact that the scheme is unfunded. However it is in capable hands—those of the Church Commissioners
—and I do not believe that there is much anxiety within the ranks of the clergy about that fact. We are grateful for the considerable amount of help that they provide for the large number of pensioners that there now are.
On the level of pensions, I have first to make the obvious point, which I am sure that the noble Lord understands full well, that pensions relate to stipends. We do not have large stipends. There is a kind of uneasy compromise within the Church of England upon the matter of differentials. I am sure that your Lordships are aware of that point. There are churches which make no differentials. They live, as they would say, even closer to the Gospel standard than we do.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the right reverend Prelate. I understand that pensions are related to stipends. On the other hand, clergy of I believe all ranks, including vicars, rectors, suffragans, diocesan bishops and archbishops, enjoy what I would call substantial fringe benefits, to use the jargon, in their occupations; for example, houses, and, to a certain extent, board and lodging. It would be normal in my view to calculate a pension based not merely on the stipend but on the value of the benefits in kind that are received because they are part of the salary, if I may use business terms.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for explaining that point. I see the point. I see that if one were to take that higher figure one would have a case. I must say that it is a matter to which most of us have not given much thought. I think that one could get into a discussion which would include the fact that the ultimate sources both of the pension and the stipend are in part the Church Commissioners and in part the giving of the present day. There is a sense in which the more pensions are increased the less there is available for stipends. There is a balance to be struck which would be part of the debate which we would have to have.
We are a peculiar mixture. Perhaps I may make the obvious point that on moving from the diocese of Newcastle to the diocese of Southwark which, by most indices, is two-and-a-half times as large, I remain on exactly the same stipend. In the business world that would be thought unusual. One could expand the point in various other ways.
All I am saying is that when one enters the ordained ministry, one does not expect to be remunerated or pensioned at quite the same level as many of one's contemporaries who have gone into other occupations. There are other compensations on which I could expand another time. I thank the noble Lord for making the point; I am sure it will be noted in the proper places.
On the more specific issues raised, the noble Lord asked me what progress I thought could be made on the question of divorced wives. I took note that the
1688
Chancellor was questioned about that in the House in June. I am afraid that I cannot recall exactly his reply except that he indicated that the problem was difficult and that further consideration was being given to the matter. I hope that perhaps as a result of the exchange we have had it may be drawn to his attention once more that this is something on which there is a growing level of concern. It is not just within the Church but in many other parts of society. As I said in my speech, I hope it will not be too long before we hear about it.
Secondly, I was asked whether the pensions were portable. The noble Lord asked whether, if people leave the ordained ministry and go into other work, they can take their pensions with them. Are pensions transferable? The answer is yes, they are. Pensions are legally required to be so, although I think there is some slight technical problem in that people are not legally required to receive them. Notwithstanding that, in general we certainly accept that pensions are transferable both ways and we are glad to try to help people who come to us as well as people who leave us for secular occupations.
Finally, the noble Lord gave the answer for me. Yes, we are able to encourage clergy to make additional voluntary contributions. That is possible and it is done. However it is not possible to have a quite separate personal pension scheme. I believe there is a legal difference between the two which I am afraid I do not fully understand but I am aware that it exists. Additional voluntary contributions are possible. I think that deals with the points raised by the noble Lord. I commend the Measure to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing Bill
7.55 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 102.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, I suggest that Amendments Nos. 193, 193A, 194 and 194A be agreed to formally en bloc.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 193, 193A, 194 and 194A:
Page 79, line 17, leave out from ("have") to ("above") in line 18 and insert ("given notice as mentioned in subsection (2)(b)")
Page 79, line 27, after ("acquired") insert ("disregarding any reduction by virtue of such a covenant as is referred to in subsection (1) above)")
Page 79, line 34, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(2)(b)")
Page 79, line 43, at end insert—
("(7) Regulations prescribing any of the matters referred to in subsection (1) above shall also make provision with respect to the determination of the amounts which are to be payable on the occasion of prescribed disposals: and the amount of any reduction in the price payable for the property to be acquired which is attributable to such a covenant as is referred to in that subsection shall be determined by the district valuer.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 193, 193A, 194 and 194A en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 195 not moved.]
Clause 103 [Duty to complete and consequences of completion]:
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 80, line 3, at end insert ("; and
(c) the applicant shall pay the landlord a proportion of the rent arrears owing by tenants who have been transferred, such proportion to he agreed between the landlord and applicant but shall not be less than 35 per cent.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that at least a proportion of arrears goes to the applicant. I pursued a similar amendment in Committee. I pointed out that as drafted the Bill presents an opportunity for tenants with arrears to opt out, leaving the local authority with a debt which realistically it will not be able to recover. Only a current landlord can use the effective sanction of the courts, so it is surely in the interests of good management practice to transfer the debt.
At that time the Minister failed to address the issue of how much a debt would be pursued by the local authority. I regret that once again he appeared to be quite unfairly critical of local authorities when he confirmed that this would be the case except when the arrears were due to mismanagement on the part of the existing landlord. I refer your Lordships to col. 672 of Hansard for 10th October 1988. I think this is a rather unnecessary and unfair further attack on local government. I pointed out during the exchanges at the Committee stage that I had recently seen a report showing that on a national basis there had been approximately a 10 per cent. increase in rent arrears in local authority housing since the Government introduced their new housing benefit regulations and the new system. I do not think any part of that can be ascribed to the local authorities being involved in mismanagement. It is about time that we had fewer attacks on local authorities. They have made mistakes but all the people involved in the housing field in general are very quick to make people aware that in the main local authorities have performed a tremendous service over many years. I am talking not only about my own party but about the local authorities which have been controlled by the Conservative Party and other parties. Where there have been council houses they have fulfilled a tremendous need. In most cases they are very well managed on behalf of the tenants. That is why I have made the point and I hope that the Minister will be able to give some comfort to us in his reply. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, given what we said in Committee when moving the amendments which added subsection (4) to Clause 103, it will come as no surprise to your Lordships if we say that we must oppose Amendment No. 196. Subsection (4) provides that rent arrears built up under the management of existing landlords shall remain debts owed to that landlord for it to recover in the usual way for civil debt. It does not let the tenant off the hook; he is still liable to pay that debt. The subsection, we readily concede, removes from that landlord's armoury of weapons for debt recovery the threat of eviction. But where a landlord has convinced a court before the relevant date that possession is the only answer, that tenant is excluded from tenants' choice.
1690
On the other hand, where the tenant is able to transfer and so bring subsection (4) into play, it must be clear that the threat of eviction was not exactly a substantial one. Either the landlord did not wish to go down that road or the courts were prepared to allow the tenant time to pay.
Under all the circumstances, we consider that it is right for the landlord to be left with the debts it is owed. Amendment No. 196 will cut across that. In addition, it also produces an obvious unfairness. While requiring the applicant to pay a proportion of the arrears to the former landlord, it leaves the right to recover the arrears with that landlord alone. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, will understand the points I am making and in those circumstances agree to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. I have some sympathy with his point of view. Unfortunately it will not work out as he thinks it will. If the local authority is left with the debt, it has three ways of raising or obtaining the money. One is by grant from the Government in the rate support grant, which it will not get. The only two remaining possibilities are to load it on to the authority's own rates, which will shortly, I understand, be made illegal. Once again we fall back on the existing council house tenant, who will have to meet the debt. The Minister talked of local authorities going to court and evicting tenants. Local authorities are very reluctant to do that, as they are only loading themselves with another problem of creating homeless tenants. I do not say this with my tongue in my cheek, but the overwhelming number of families who hold debts in local authority housing will never meet them. A large percentage of the debt is I believe irrecoverable. I do not know how it would be possible to create a system to collect the money.
But nevertheless, when the Bill becomes an Act and the various clauses start to function, some of the worst fears on this side of the House will be realised. I foresee a time in the not too distant future when the Government will have to come back with legislation to try to correct some of the mistakes that are being made now. However, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 104 [Consent required for subsequent disposals]:
8 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 80, line 25, after ("Part") insert ("(in this section referred to as "the new landlord")").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 197 and with the permission of your Lordships speak to Amendments Nos. 198 and 202. These amendments are designed to make the safeguards provided by Clause 104 more effective. Clause 104, which requires my right honourable friend's consent to disposals of property by a person who has acquired it under tenants' choice, is there to look after both the public's and the tenant's interests. In the public interest it provides a means of giving

1691
extra teeth to the tenants' guarantee requirement on landlords to keep transferred property available for letting. In the tenants' interest, it means that a firm measure of control is available over any proposals to dispose of their homes after transfer to a new owner under Part IV.
It may help to explain how these improvements work. The proposed new subsection (4A) deals with "exempt disposals". All of the "disposals", in inverted commas, listed are disposals in a technical and legal sense, and so would, as the Bill stands, have required consent. But they are all transactions—grants of leases-back under Clause 99 right-to-buy sales, mortgages, grants of assured
tenancies and so forth—which do not need to be controlled in either the public or the tenants' interest. Any later disposal where those interests are involved, and particularly freehold or long leasehold disposals of tenanted or untenanted transferred property, remain subject to strict control. The result of subsection (4A) is simply less bureaucracy.
The proposed new subsections (1A) and (1B) deal with another kind of circumstances, again in a way which is in the interests both of the public and the transferred tenants. Subsection (1A) deals with those cases where a person who is not the applicant is able to dispose of the property, although it does not belong to that person. The cases are those of the mortgagee who may exercise his power of sale and the person who has a charge over the property giving a similar power. Such a mortgagee or chargee will need the Secretary of State's consent to disposal. Subsection (1B) covers cases where the property passes to a person who is not the new landlord without the volition of the new landlord. It will cover, for example, the passing of property to a trustee in bankruptcy. The effect of subsection (1B) is that, if I can put it in layman's terms, a real non-exempt disposal by such a person is subject to control in just the same way as a similar disposal by the new landlord would have been.
These amendments build on and strengthen existing safeguards and I hope will be welcome on that basis. We have already discussed government amendments to Part III to make subsequent disposals by a post-HAT landlord subject to control similar to that provided by Clause 104 as we propose to amend it; and we shall debate tomorrow analogous proposals in the context of tenanted property which has been disposed of voluntarily by local housing authorities.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 80, line 27, leave out from ("to") to end of line 28 and insert ("an exempt disposal, as defined in subsection (4A) below.

(1A) Where an estate or interest in property acquired by the new landlord has been mortgaged or charged, the prohibition in subsection (1) above on disposal of the property without consent applies also to a disposal by the mortgagee or chargee in exercise of a power of sale or leasing, whether or not the disposal is in the name of the new landlord.

(1B) In any case where—

(a) by operation of law or by virtue of an order of a court property which has been acquired by the new landlord passes or is transferred to another person, and

1692

(b) that passing or transfer does not constitute a disposal for which consent is required under subsection (1) above,

this section (including, where there is more than one such passing or transfer, this subsection) shall apply as if the other person to whom the property passes or is transferred were the new landlord.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 199 to 201 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 202
Page 80, line 39, at end insert—
("(4A) In this section an "exempt disposal" means—

(a) the grant of a lease pursuant to such a requirement as is referred to in section 99(l)(b) above;

(b) the disposal of a dwelling-house to a person having the right to buy it under Part V of the 1985 Act (whether the disposal is in fact made under that Part or otherwise);

(c) a compulsory disposal, within the meaning of Part V of the 1985 Act;

(d) the disposal of an easement or rentcharge;

(e) the disposal of an interest by way of security for a loan;

(f) the grant of a secure tenancy or what would be a secure tenancy but for any of paragraphs 2 to 12 of Schedule Ito the 1985 Act;

(g) the grant of an assured tenancy, within the meaning of Part I of this Act, or what would be such a tenancy but for any of paragraphs 4 to 8 of Schedule I to this Act; and

(h) the transfer of an interest which is held on trust where the disposal is made in connection with the appointment of a new trustee or in connection with the discharge of any trustee.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 202A:
After Clause 104, insert the following new clause:
("Tenants' choice—Co-operative disposals: Scotland.
After subsection (4)(c) of section 53 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988, there shall be inserted—
"(d) which is subject to an approved co-operative management agreement unless the right is being exercised in respect of all the houses subject to the agreement and in which the public sector landlord is the heritable proprietor.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4)(d) above, an approved co-operative management agreement is an agreement which is made with the approval of the Secretary of State under section 22 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is with considerable trepidation that I rise to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. Housing is bad enough, but housing north of the Border is even worse. At least my family came from Jedburgh, which is only 11 miles from the English Border at Carter Bar. Therefore, we had an escape hole if things got difficult. I fear that I have no such escape hole here.
As I understand it, this amendment is about the exercise of tenants' choice—again, I think that the phrase "tenants' choice" should be put in quotes here, as it should throughout this Bill—as it applies to co-operative disposals in Scotland. As I understand the issue, what is being proposed is that where under Scottish tenure there are a number of different tenants who share a dwelling in which they have their own rights—my noble friend has described this as being as many factors as there are
tenants—they should all have to agree before a
disposal is acceptable. My noble friend feels that that is in accordance with what should happen in such areas of Scotland as Glasgow, where this is a very common form of tenure. He hopes, and I hope, that it will commend itself to the Government.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to matters concerning our affairs north of the Border. I too live near Jedburgh, 11 miles away from the Border, so I know what he is talking about. The difference between Jedburgh and Haringey is very obvious.
I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said. I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint him. However, I shall explain very carefully the reasons why. The new clause seeks to introduce into the Scottish tenants' choice provisions (in Part III of the Housing (Scotland) Bill which we considered in this House before the Recess) the concept of block transfer where a house or flat involved in a transfer is under the management of a tenant co-operative. However, the tenants' choice provisions in Scotland are framed on an individual tenant basis.
The remarks made by my noble friend Lord Caithness apply (as the noble Lord noted) in relation to the proposals in Part IV of this Bill, which deals only with England and Wales, under which a whole building, for example containing flats must—not "could" as has been suggested—be acquired. The need to acquire the whole building in this way reflects English land tenure arrangements, and the system of ballots which this Bill introduces in England and Wales takes account of this fact. In Scotland, however, individual flats are transferred on an outright purchase basis, not on leasehold, and as a result our system is simple and we think straightforward. Each tenant has the option of exercising tenants' choice individually, and no votes or ballots are required. We do not believe in the Scottish circumstances, therefore, that there is any need for tenants of houses managed by a management co-operative to have to decide the future ownership of their houses collectively in the way this amendment suggests.
That is not to say that we do not recognise the value of tenant management co-operatives. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Government firmly believe that tenant management and ownership co-operatives can make a significant contribution to the diversification of housing tenure and choice. Indeed, the progression from being the tenant of a local authority direct, to participating in a tenant management co-operative and then in a tenant ownership co-operative is one which we have seen already in Glasgow. As the noble Lord mentioned Glasgow, I should like to emphasise that. It may well be repeated elsewhere. But as regards
1694
Scotland, to introduce a provision into the tenants' choice legislation requiring block transfers to take place, even in limited circumstances, would run quite contrary to the general policy of individual transfers.
In conclusion, I would say that we debated Part III of the Housing (Scotland) Bill at quite great length earlier on in this Session. I believe that this issue was thoroughly aired at that time. I am afraid that I have to resist the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will read the Minister's words with great attention. If he feels it necessary to come back at a later stage he will exercise his rights within the rules of debate and within the rules of order of the House. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 113 [Interpretation of Part IV]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 84, leave out lines 6 and 7, and insert—
(""qualifying tenant" shall be construed in accordance with subsections (3) and (4) of section 92 above:").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 203 is consequential on our amendments in Committee to Clause 92. Those amendments extended the definition of "qualifying tenant" in that clause, and Amendment No. 203 now similarly amends that definition in Clause 113.
I ask your Lordships to accept this simple amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Harwich Parkeston Quay Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past eight o'clock.

  SATELLITE SERVICE LICENCES
  SATELLITE SERVICE LICENCES
  COMMUNITY CHARGE REBATES
  COMMUNITY CHARGE REBATES
  PRISON SERVICE MANAGEMENT
  PRISON SERVICE MANAGEMENT
  ALBANIAN REFUGEES: UK STATISTICS
  ALBANIAN REFUGEES: UK STATISTICS
  EC TREATIES: CONSOLIDATION
  EC TREATIES: CONSOLIDATION
  DEER ORDER
  DEER ORDER
  LEAD-BASED PAINT: GOVERNMENT POLICY
  LEAD-BASED PAINT: GOVERNMENT POLICY
  HOME INSULATION SCHEME
  HOME INSULATION SCHEME
  SELLAFIELD EFFLUENT DISCHARGE
  SELLAFIELD EFFLUENT DISCHARGE
  WATER CHARGES
  WATER CHARGES