My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows: To ask Her Majesty's Government how many people are likely to have received educational opportunities by 1986–87 through the recently-announced scheme for unemployed adults.

My Lords, the programme will seek to improve educational provision for unemployed adults largely by providing advice and information about the most effective ways of meeting their varied needs. Some innovative and developmental provision will be sponsored, but responsibility for ensuring adequate educational provision for unemployed adults will continue to rest with local education authorities. While the Government hope that many students will benefit from the programme, it is not possible to identify them separately and to provide estimates of numbers.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Has he any estimates of how certain areas where traditional industries have had to suffer practically from closure will be assisted by this scheme?

My Lords, we do not collect statistical information on unemployed students in further and adult education, but the indications are that participation by the unemployed is substantial. Some adult education centres in areas of high unemployment estimate that 20 per cent. or more of their students are without work. This programme will provide much useful information on this situation.

My Lords, can the noble Earl tell us whether under this scheme the unemployed will be taught how to find jobs, since the Government do not seem to be doing very much about it?

My Lords, this Government, just as much as Members on the other side of the House, would like to see all the unemployed in jobs, and our economic policies are designed to secure that lasting recovery which alone can make the jobs available. Meanwhile, the unemployed can be helped by education in various ways, not least in terms of improving their employability.

My Lords, can the noble Earl the Minister tell us whether the scheme will be confined to vocational education or whether it will include the wider elements of education which perhaps would help people to come to terms with the new economic circumstances in which we are living?

My Lords, this involves both the DES and the MSC, and their interests in this field are complementary. For instance, the MSC are not concerned with non-vocational education while the DES programme will not focus on job-specific training. Between these poles there is an area where interests overlap. I am satisfied that the DES programme will establish its own identity, and this is why, in order to ensure fruitful collaboration, the MSC are represented on the DES Programmes Steering Committee. I am sure that this will help in both types of education.

My Lords, could the Minister confirm that in some areas unemployment is largely a matter of mismatch between skills and jobs, and that these educational opportunities may help people in this respect?

My Lords, they would help in that sort of case.

My Lords, can the noble Earl say what is the point of improving the employability of people for whom the Government have manifestly no intention of providing employment?

My Lords, I should have thought that the more employable they were, the more chance they would have of finding a job.

My Lords, not unless there is a job.

My Lords, would the Minister agree that the 125,000 unemployed which the Training for Jobs White Paper said will be helped will make a very small impression on the three million unemployed, since they represent only about 4 per cent.? Are there no other plans? Is more money going to the universities, and possibly to Birkbeck College, which deals with adult education?

My Lords, I think that one of the reasons for the setting up of this steering committee is to investigate what is happening and to see where the money can be spent for the greatest benefit and in the most cost-effective way.

My Lords, I beg to leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows: To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are intending to take to redress the difference between the import duty levied by Spain on British-made cars, and that levied by the United Kingdom on Spanish-made cars.

My Lords, the difference in duties on cars is embodied in the trade agreement between Spain and the Community which was concluded in 1970, before the United Kingdom had joined the Community and at a time when Spain was less industrialised than she is today. Although we recognise that, in charging high duties, Spain is acting within her treaty rights, the Government have made clear their view that, 14 years later, these arrangements are anomalous. For this reason, we welcomed Spain's decision last year to introduce reduced-duty quotas for imported cars. The only definitive solution is, however, for Spain to join the Community on terms which include significant early reductions in Spain's highest duties. We are working to this end.

My Lords. I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will he not agree that it is ironic that, of the volume car maufacturers in this country, there is only one which is British owned, and that is British Leyland; that Austin Rover is the only one which exports to Spain, and that neither Ford (UK) nor Vauxhall exports? Is the Minister aware that at the present time British Leyland is given a quota for a maximum of one year in advance, and that normally it is very much less? Would he agree that it would help BL immensely if they were given a quota for a three-year period?

Finally, did the noble Lord the Minister read an article in the Daily Mail recently by their motoring correspondent, Michael Kemp, in which he claimed that SEAT, which is a Spanish state-controlled company, intended to import 30,000 cars a year into this country? Is he aware that these imports of 30,000 cars would have no quotas and would bear only a 4.4 per cent. import duty?

My Lords, I am not sure that I would agree with the noble Earl that it is ironic that BL are getting a quota. 1 would say to the noble Earl, however, that BL, I am glad to say, are doing well out of their quota, because this country increased its exports to Spain by 75 per cent. last year as compared with the year before. Nonetheless, if I may take up the rest of the noble Earl's question, we agree that there is room for Spain to make improvements in next year's quotas, and we shall certainly be making Spain aware of our views. I did not read the newspaper article, but I think that the noble Earl has very usefully underlined the need for Spain to come into the Common Market, when the tariffs will be harmonised.

My Lords, did my noble friend say that 1970 was when the agreement was made? Was there no opportunity in the Tokyo round of GATT negotiations to bring up to date the arrangements between ourselves and Spain?

My Lords, I do not know whether the attempt was made in the Tokyo round of GATT. My advice is that an attempt was made in 1979 to do something about the situation but it failed since the other member states of the Community were not prepared to make the concessions in the agricultural field which Spain demanded as the price for making concessions on industrial tariffs.

My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that it will be impossible for Spain and Portugal to come into the Community unless they agree to an increase in own resources on the next round of negotiations?

My Lords, I think that is another question.

My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that in all these trade questions the critical factor is the exchange rate, and that we suffer from too high an exchange rate because we are a great financial centre and the bankers like a high exchange rate as against the manufacturers, who need a low one?

My Lords, we have a good exchange rate because we have a good Government.

My Lords, before asking my Question, may I point out that there is a slight mistake in the wording as printed on the Order Paper? The Question should read:

"To ask Her Majesty's Government what action parents may take when they are concerned at the content of teaching of peace studies in schools".

I beg leave to ask this Question.

My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science said in his recent speech about peace studies, parents who believe that they have grounds for complaint about a school's or a teacher's treatment of the issues of peace and war should not hesitate to take the matter up with the school and, if they do not receive satisfaction from the school, with the local education authority and ultimately with my right honourable friend himself. This advice applies equally to anxieties which may be felt by parents about biased teaching in other areas of the school curriculum. All such complaints are always taken seriously and are raised with the local education authority concerned.

My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for that Answer, is he aware that I and many others who have served as governors of schools warmly congratulate the Government on grasping this nettle and on the advice that is being given, that as regards war and peace studies and the issues of war and peace, they must be taught without emotion in a balanced and dispassionate way? Finally, in asking this question, how is the Secretary of State to be sure that when the advice he has given to local authorities and schools is not followed and parents are worried about peace studies and in the present-day existence of intimidation—

Reading!

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, with the existence of intimidation, if they do report this to the Secretary of State they may become the object of victimisation?

My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for drawing attention to the speech of my right honourable friend about the teaching of peace studies, and to endorse all that he has said about that. As regards the possible victimisation of parents, all I can say is that I hope parents will not be afraid of complaining to my right honourable friend if they feel strongly about this. As my right honourable friend suggested in another speech, and indeed in this speech, if they do feel they are likely to be victimised they should get together with other parents who have the same fears and go ahead with a joint approach.

My Lords, may I ask the Minister how many specific complaints the Secretary of State had received, and from how many areas of local education authorities, before he made his speech to the National Council of Women on 3rd March?

My Lords, I do not know the areas they came from but between 1st January 1983 and 2nd March 1984 complaints about peace studies were received from six correspondents.

My Lords, as somebody who is interested in dichotomy, are there not certain difficulties in teaching history and peace studies, since the two so manifestly contradict each other?

My Lords, we believe that pupils should be able to discuss important issues like peace, war and disarmament. Indeed, as the noble Lord said, such issues can hardly be avoided in the teaching of such subjects as history, religious education, physics, English and so on. But when such interests are being discussed it is important that the teacher should deal with them in a fair and impartial way, encouraging pupils to weigh the evidence and to arrive at their own conclusions.

My Lords, in view of the fact that all of us declare ourselves to be in favour of peace, including the Government, is it not reasonable that children, whose future life will be involved, should be allowed to make studies of this problem?

My Lords, yes, this is one of the matters which should be taken into consideration, but what is worrying my right honourable friend is when a teacher, perhaps inadvisedly, tries to stamp his own feelings on peace studies rather than having a balanced and fair discussion.

My Lords, if the noble Earl the Minister thanks a noble Member of this House who reads a very long question, ought he not to accord the same courtesy to Members of this House, whatever side they sit on? Is it the Government's intention to say that it is perfectly all right to preach war to children but not to preach peace?

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord opposite for his question. No, the Government say that it is equally wrong to preach war as to preach peace. The point my right honourable friend and I are making is that it is not right for a teacher to preach anything, unless he is a reverend teacher.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are holding, or intend to hold, negotiations with the Argentine Government on the Falkland Islands with a view to reducing the cost to the United Kingdom of the existing situation.

My Lords, we shall continue to meet the costs necessary to fulfil our commitments to the islanders. At the same time we are seeking to improve our bilateral relations with Argentina and to re-establish confidence. We will not discuss sovereignty over the Falklands.

My Lords, although I welcome the Answer of the noble Baroness, she must be aware that it will be received with some disappointment by noble Members of this House and by a wider audience outside. Bearing in mind that the cost to each individual income taxpayer in this country is £40 per year to support the Fortress Falklands policy of the present Government, does not the noble Baroness agree that it is time for a further urgent initiative to be taken with the Argentine government in order to get direct talks moving so as to reduce this colossal burden?

My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, the Prime Minister sent a message to President Alfonsin on the occasion of his inauguration on 10th December which was intended to pave the way for the development of better bilateral relations. We followed this up on 26th January by putting some specific ideas to the Argentinians through the Swiss protecting power. We have now received a substantial response from the Argentine government which we are still considering.

My Lords, would the Government agree that, if there are to be discussions with a very well disposed Argentinian government, they are not likely to make much progress—if they take place at all—unless the Government admit, without committing themselves on the question of sovereignty, that, in the long run and in the end, such discussions would not exclude the discussion of the political future of the Falkland Islands?

My Lords, the Government have made their position quite clear on the question of the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.

My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that there will be no question of compromising the Falkland Islanders' rights to self-determination? Is it not time that Argentina declared peace on a day when we in this House have been discussing peace studies?

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his intervention. On his second point, it would be helpful if President Alfonsin could now formally declare a definitive cessation of hostilities and renounce the future use of force.

My Lords, while accepting that the prospect of meaningful discussions on sovereignty will not take place for the time being and into the distant future and that the majority of the heavy expenditure has already been committed and that it will be relatively small in two years' time, would the noble Baroness consider the possibility of conversations with regard to the conservation of the marine resources? Is she aware that there is a very large number of ships operating from different countries in the vicinity of the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and that it is vital to introduce a measure of conservation? Might this not be equally in the interests of Argentina and of the Falkland Islands? As the noble Baroness knows, very good relationships exist between the British Antarctic Survey, the signatories of the Antarctic Treaty and Argentine scientists.

My Lords, as I believe the House and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, are aware, the possibility and the implications of declaring an exclusive fisheries limit are under careful consideration. However, the fact that the matter is still being considered reflects the complexity of the issue. But I have noted the point which the noble Lord has made.

My Lords, can the noble Baroness say what the Government are doing to give maximum publicity, at home as well as abroad, to Britain's overwhelming cultural, ethnic, geographical, his-torical, legal and, above all. moral case over the Falkland Islands?

My Lords, the Government have repeatedly made plain their view on Britain's sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness recognise that the fact that she has been to the Falkland Islands and has had the benefit of meeting people there and seeing the position for herself has been generally welcomed? Does the noble Baroness also recognise that the Fortress Falklands policy, which might have been relevant for a short period, is no longer justifiable because the future of the Falkland Islands depends upon their relationship with Argentina, with Latin America and with other countries, and that it also depends upon communications and trade? Can the noble Baroness say what proposals have been received from President Alfonsin, what response the Government have made and whether the Government will initiate talks with the widest possible agenda in order to make progress?

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, for his remarks about my visit to the Falkland Islands, which was most valuable and interesting. On his second point, I should make it clear that we need to be fully satisfied that Argentina renounces the future use of force. We have noted the statements by the Argentine government that they intend to pursue their claim by peaceful means. At no stage have the Government accepted the term "Fortress Falklands". It has been coined by others and has very little meaning. Turning to the question of the diplomatic initiatives, I indicated in response to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. that we have now received a response from the Argentine government to our initial proposals through the mediation of the protecting power. We are considering that response, but we believe that it is in the best interests of both ourselves and the Argentine government for the details to be kept confidential for the time being.

My Lords, bearing in mind the noble Baroness's assurance about the response of the Argentine government, is she aware that an Early Day Motion, sponsored by Back-Bench supporters of the Government, is on the Order Paper in another place, urging support for the type of action that I have suggested? Is the noble Baroness aware also that in the foreign affairs debate which was held recently in another place, prominent Back-Benchers of her own party suggested the course of action which I put to her in my Question? May I therefore ask the noble Baroness whether, in view of the financial implications, the Government's response to the Argentine government's response will be urgent?

My Lords, I am, of course, aware of the Early Day Motion to which the noble Lord has referred and I have studied the debate on foreign affairs which took place in another place last week. I should like to make it plain that Her Majesty's Government wish to have more normal bilateral relations with Argentina. I have already described the proposals that we have made. At the same time I should like to make it clear that it remains our policy to stand firmly by our commitments to the Falkland Islanders while seeking more normal bilateral relations with Argentina.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shackleton mentioned one very important aspect of the economic future of the Falkland Islands; namely, the development of marine resources. May I ask the noble Baroness whether she is entirely satisfied that another aspect—namely, land reform—is developing satisfactorily?

My Lords, that question is really rather wide of the original Question on the Order Paper. If the noble Lord cares to put down a Question on that subject, I will be happy to answer it.

My Lords, would it be unkind to say that it is not only rather wide but also rather more difficult?

My Lords, I did not quite hear the end of the noble Lord's question; but may I say that it is the Government's view that there should be a gradual acquisition by the islanders of their farms. I believe the figures will substantiate that that is taking place.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the expansion of the Territorial Army.

moved Amendment No. 50:

My Lords, that really was the most extraordinary speech I have ever heard the noble Baroness make in the five years I have been here. To talk of confirming the overwhelming vote of this House a year ago on something which was absolutely and totally different is quite astonishing. I made clear in Committee that what is now Clause 32 of the Bill does no more than provide the legislative framework for the home-ownership scheme for charitable tenants that we are proposing. The details of the scheme will be administrative. But, at Committee stage, I thought it right to make as clear as possible how the Government intend that the scheme should operate. I therefore went into some detail about how we would propose that discounts under the scheme should be calculated and the safeguards we are intending to introduce to ensure that the scheme is not abused.

I think I should now say a little about the main aspects of the scheme and the safeguards which we intend to build into it. However, I should first make clear the Government's very genuine concern to help the tenants of charitable housing associations who are both able to and want to take on the benefits and responsibilities of home ownership. That is what this scheme is designed to do. It does so without depriving the charitable landlords of the continued use for the objects of the charity of the dwellings in which people have lived. In this way, we have tried to meet not only the aspirations of those tenants who want home ownership but also the aspirations of the charities who want to continue letting to people in housing need.

As I made clear in Committee, many of these tenants will have been housed by a charitable housing association in the first place under nomination rights by the local authority. How can it possibly be fair that, when there are two equally deserving tenants housed from a local authority's waiting list, the one who is housed by the local authority should be entitled to help if he wants to buy his own home through the right to buy, but the tenant of the charitable housing association should be entitled to no help at all? Clearly, for starters, there is no way that that situation can be justified.

To suggest, let alone to claim, that these tenants are getting preferential treatment is to stand logic on its head. Quite the reverse is the case. It is only because these tenants do not get the right to buy—I do not need to remind your Lordships why that is—that they are obliged to seek a house on the open market if they want to become home owners. Many of these tenants are likely to want the same rights as local authority tenants; the right to buy the house they have lived in, and cared for, for many years. Far from getting preferential treatment, many tenants of charitable housing associations will remain disappointed that they do not have the right to buy their present home.

I should like to refer to the suggestion made in Committee that the scheme will have a serious effect on the housing market and that it will jeopardise the chances of young couples who are trying to buy their own homes. The noble Baroness touched on that again today. Let me say, first of all, that I am very proud that the Government have done so much to encourage home ownership, even outside the right to buy. Fifty thousand homes have been sold under low-cost ownership schemes since 1979. Can it seriously be suggested that this scheme to help charitable tenants is likely to have a significant effect on the whole housing market? I totally repudiate the suggestion that, at most, a few thousand tenants of charitable housing associations—and let us remember that we are talking here of tenants who are generally elderly or poor—will become a new kind of property shark or will roam the country, outbidding young couples who are trying to buy their first home.

Let us get the matter into perspective. All we are doing is to give a relatively small group of tenants—a group who would be unlikely to be able to afford home ownership through any other means—a chance to buy a home of their own. The discount will never be more, and will often be significantly less, than tenants receive under the right to buy.

Your Lordships will recall that at the Committee stage I explained at some length the discount rules that we propose to operate under this scheme. I shall not go into the details again, but I ought perhaps to emphasise the main point. The discount that a tenant receives under this scheme will never be more in cash than a tenant would be entitled to under the right to buy, and nor will the discount ever be a higher percentage of the purchase price than the tenant would obtain if he were buying his existing dwelling under the right to buy. These safeguards mean that there is absolutely no question of tenants receiving large cash handouts that would enable them to acquire a house on the open market virtually free.

I should like to mention another safeguard that we are introducing to ensure that the scheme is not abused. This is the requirement that a tenant should have lived in the same house or flat belonging to the charitable landlord for at least two years before he can take advantage of the scheme. This is to make sure that, quite apart from the major safeguard provided by the requirement that charitable landlords can let only to tenants who conform with their charitable objects, there can be no question of successive tenants being moved into charitable dwellings so as to take advantage of the scheme.

Finally, a word again about the costs of the scheme. We heard some rather startling figures from the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I do not for one moment accept them. The only figure that the Government have given is that the cost is likely to be £10 million in 1984–85. I do not accept the figures which were quoted from the National Town Planning Council, and certainly not those from the AMA. I prefer the figure of the National Federation of Housing Associations, which is £14 million a year, even though that is slightly higher than our estimate. The figure may fluctuate upwards or downwards, but the figures that the noble Baroness mentioned reminded me of the kind of talk that we had in Committee when a figure of £600 million a year was mentioned. It is almost a question of think of a number, double it and then start multiplying it.

I should also mention that for future years the needs of the scheme will be taken into account when the Housing Corporation's programme is set. This will be one of the elements taken into account in setting its programme. All the talk of the noble Baroness about diminution of the allocation, and so on, is totally irrelevant. It is a red herring, We have said clearly that that is not the case, and I repeat that.

The noble Baroness said that the proposal would do nothing to replenish depleted housing stocks. With respect, that is exactly what it does. The Labour Party's key argument on everything to do with the right to buy is that it diminishes the availability of houses for rent. This proposal does exactly the opposite. As a tenant moves out into a home that he buys—and in this case it is a question of moving out—it makes available a further dwelling to let. That cannot be said about the right to buy and local authority housing, and nor did we ever say that. But here the situation is very clear. The charitable housing association will acquire every dwelling vacated by somebody who moves out and buys somewhere else.

It is a somewhat mean, vindictive and, frankly, cynical amendment. The case was argued in great depth in Committee. There is no doubt that noble Lords on this side of the House who, in the earlier debate on the Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part?, a year ago, expressed concern and voted against the then proposal, this time accepted it. The scene is totally different. You cannot even begin to compare what is being proposed here with what was being proposed then. It is a novel proposal, certainly, but there is nothing wrong with that. It is an attempt to find a solution for these people.

It is a very unusual case. There are no losers. The charitable housing association will retain the accommodation and the tenant will have a chance to own his home. The arguments about pushing up prices and about inflation are just a joke when one considers the numbers. The grants will have the strict limitations which I have explained. The proposal will bring fairness and equity to what is at present a very unsatisfactory situation. The only explanation that I can think of as to why noble Lords opposite wish to oppose the proposal is quite simply to take any opportunity whatever to stop people changing from public tenancies to owning a home of their own. It is anathema to them. The noble Baroness has told us that she intends to divide the House and strongly to oppose the scheme. It is not worthy of that kind of consideration on any grounds at all.

My Lords, we support the amendment. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has covered everything which should be said about it. The Minister's case is based largely on only one thing—the difference for the tenants between living in a local authority dwelling and living in a charitable housing association dwelling, and the fact that it is unfair on the latter. To an extent it is, but we must see things in proportion. The vast majority of people live in private rented accommodation. This Bill will do nothing at all for them. We must keep a sense of proportion and realise that in certain cases there is a slight disadvantage for charitable housing association tenants, but it will do nothing to decrease the general unfairness in housing by selecting a very small proportion of the total.

My Lords, there is very little that I can add to the potent arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. We should never lose sight of the fact that the potential beneficiaries under this hastily conceived scheme will be considerably better off if this clause remains unaltered than normal purchasers under right to buy schemes, because of the choice of properties and locations that these potential beneficiaries will be offered. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, suggested that this was a disadvantage, but I believe that most people would consider it to be a very considerable advantage. If he felt able to promise this afternoon to introduce at Third Reading, or to accept, an amendment, for example, to reduce the maximum cash payment in respect of any one property from £25,000 to £10,000—because, after all, he has already told us that the average will be no more than £6,000—I might hesitate before supporting this amendment, but if no such assurance is forthcoming I shall certainly support it.

My Lords, in returning to the charge in defence of this clause I am bound to repeat myself. I consider the proposal constructive, imaginative and ingenious. In so far as tenants avail themselves of it, vacancies will become available for people from charitable housing association waiting lists. Those moving out will obviously be the better off tenants, and the vacancies will be available for younger and less well off applicants. The clause is ingenious because purchases will be seen through by non-charitable associations, or, indeed, charitable ones if they wish to do so and are entitled to do so. A purchase through an association is important since the association handling the deal will be able to have the property surveyed. The Minister may like to assure us that vetting of proposed purchases will be part of the function of any housing association in seeing a deal through. This has an important bearing on subsequent maintenance. Concern has been expressed about this, and if the property is initially in good condition, the new owners should be able to save up for maintenance as they will be relieved of having to pay rent out of taxed income.

The other concern which has been expressed is about the effect on HAG funds for new building. The Ministry are, however, paying in an additional £10 million to take account of the expected cost. This sum is based on the take-up of the right to buy in a sample non-charitable housing association. To my mind, it is likely that the take-up of the proposed outside purchases is likely to be much lower, because of people not wanting to leave their existing homes, because of the difficulty in finding new dwellings in the neighbourhood to which they are accustomed, and because the purchases are limited to publicly funded tenants. Housing association grant has only existed for some 10 years, and the maximum discount will not be widely available. In fact, the maximum discount you can get is I think 12 years, but it may be 10. I think the take-up will be small and gradual.

The wording of the clause, which at first puzzled me, results from the proposals being permissive, with alternatives open for handling the purchases and vetting the properties. It gives an opportunity without conferring a right. I think that this is a constructive proposal which, when rightly understood, should appeal to all parties. An injection of an additional £10 million of Government money into housing, whether it results in more vacancies for the less well-to-do or whether there is something over for new building purposes is surely not something to be sneezed at by any of us concerned about the nation's housing shortage.

My Lords, before the noble Baroness winds up I wonder if I may say a word. I find it difficult to disagree with quite a lot of what the noble Baroness said. The clause is a very clumsy one. Its drafting is difficult: I certainly would not have understood it if I had not known what it was intending to do. It refers to about eight clauses and four Acts which are not there and that does not make it very easy to understand. I agree with particularly one point the noble Baroness made and that is that it would be much better if the Housing Association houses had been left completely out of this Bill. As I understand the noble Baroness, she is quite happy that council houses should be sold, and I am sure she is right.

The reason for that is this, if I may speak in complete generalities. In the first half of this century, council houses were what people wanted and what people needed. They have done a tremendous job—let there be no illusion. In the second half of this century, people want owner-occupation. It is a change in the development of this country; and the Government are absolutely right to switch to putting their emphasis on owner-occupation. I have no doubt about this. This is the way we are going, and I am quite certain it is the right way.

However, there is a problem here. This particular clause does not really do the harm which the noble Baroness says. It does a certain very valuable service. Take the charitable association, for example. You do not go into a charitable association unless you are in need. The great body of the people holding charitable houses have no hope of buying their homes. They are providing part of the rented sector in this country which is disappearing and which is a terrible loss to those who are least well off. One must remember that. This clause—I was going to say not so much this clause but this Bill—does do a certain amount of damage to the housing associations in various ways. I know it is not intended to do so, but in fact it does. There are a certain number of people who, for various reasons, go in as charitable tenants—the least well off in the country—but sometimes money comes their way. They marry or something else happens. This can happen. They should be taken out of the charitable housing association places. Their place is then taken by somebody else who is in urgent need. The Bill allows that to happen, and in so far as it does that—and I do not say it does it in the best way—that is a useful service.

I want, however, to put one question to my noble friend the Minister. It is this. He said that this clause should apply to those able to take advantage of it. I should like to have those words enlarged: "if anyone can take advantage of it and do what is essential for an owner occupier: maintain his property". A house is a liability, let there be no illusion, we all know that. It costs a lot of money to maintain a house properly. That is the crux of it. Is that going to be enforced? I know one thing the noble Lord is going to say is this. There are regulations applying to local authorities which, in certain circumstances, are obliged to make a mortgage on certain conditions. I think they have to have a mortgage requirement which is similar to that of the building societies. That is all very well, but supposing with a discount you halve the price of the house. That particular regulation has no bearing because it no longer reflects the ability of the tenant to maintain his house properly. That is very important. I want to ask the noble Lord to put in a completely new regulation to make quite certain that those in charitable housing associations, who try to buy their houses can in fact really show that the homes can be maintained.

I want to put this point very clearly because if we support people to buy their houses and in 10 years they become a slum, that would be a disgrace, and there must be signs that the tenant is capable of doing that. I do not know whether the noble Lord can give me an answer to that. However, we must get this clear, because to spend public money on people buying their houses and then not being able to maintain them would be contrary to the interests of this country in every sort of way. I do not know whether the noble Lord can give some sort of indication on that, but with great respect, I think that this is absolutely essential.

One way might be to say that all these people must get their loans from a building society, or one might say a bank. Those organisations are pretty particular in seeing that the mortgage is properly paid, and seeing, as far as they can, that the house is maintained. That might be one way. I do not think it is a way that will appeal to the Government very much, I must say. But there are other ways of ensuring that people do not just buy houses on spec, but who really can live in the house and maintain it properly. If the noble Lord cannot say that, and cannot give some assurance as to that, I then really do not think this clause is good enough. If he can give that assurance, that the purchasers really are people who have got into better circumstances and can run a house properly, then 1 think possibly this clause would do. I do not know whether the noble Lord can answer that question.

My Lords, by the leave of the House if I may just very quickly make one or two observations on what has been said. The noble Viscount. Lord Hanworth, said that the Bill does nothing for private rented accommodation; but of course private rented accommodation is not provided by public funds, therefore it is not part of this matter at all. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that tenants will be better off because they will have a choice of location. You have to weigh that against the fact that you will not be able to continue in the home in which you may have lived for some years. You can argue that that is a plus or a minus, as you see it. But certainly I cannot say that there would be a reduction in the maximum. What we are setting out to do is to give a discount, as near as we can get it, equivalent to what would pertain under the right to buy from a local authority association dwelling, certainly not less, but then again not more either.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moyne. I would just say to him that he really touched upon a similar point which my noble friend Lord Selkirk said. His concern was. would we vet proposed purchasers? In a way that is a similar point to the one my noble friend Lord Selkirk mentioned. But of course that will happen anyway: when an applicant applies for a mortgage the building society, bank, or whoever is the lender, always makes sure that the property is in good shape so that there will not be an onerous burden on the purchaser—

My Lords, perhaps I may make just one observation. Surely the local authority or the Housing Corporation is under a legal obligation to provide a mortgage. That is an unqualified obligation, with no exceptions relating to the quality of the person to whom the mortgage is granted. Am I not correct in saying that that is in the Bill?

My Lords, with respect, that is not correct. Where a local authority grants a mortgage on an existing dwelling which is in its possession, the authority, as the landlord, first of all knows the state of the property, since it has been responsible for it for a long time. People buying a house under this scheme will be treated in exactly the same way as any other purchaser on the open market. In order to obtain a mortgage—and I should think that my noble friend knows more about this aspect than does anyone else in your Lordships' House—the applicant will have to satisfy the building society that his income is adequate not only to buy the house, but to be able to maintain it. That is the point. I take note of the concern which my noble friend expresses. We have talked about it, not least because he himself has drawn it to our attention on more than one occasion.

I turn to the other relevant factor. My noble friend asked what would happen if, due to the discount, the purchaser bought the house at half its actual value. That would mean that the purchaser's mortgage repayments would be only half of what they would otherwise have been, and so he would be in a less onerous position than if he was repaying a mortgage on the higher figure.

I understand and share my noble friend's point because we are concerned that people should be able not only to buy a house, but also to keep it in good condition. I do not believe that this is really a problem, even though I know that my noble friend is concerned about it. and I hope that on balance he will feel the same way. I think that that is all that I can additionally add. I am sure that again there is a big difference between us: but this is one case where I am absolutely convinced that there is advantage for everyone and disadvantage for no one.

My Lords. I am sorry that the Minister has taken this matter so much to heart as to describe as mean and vindictive what I thought was a reasonable point of view which illustrated differences of opinion which even this afternoon have been echoed across the House. There was nothing mean or vindictive in what I said. I was taking the clause as it stood and arguing against it. The Minister said that what we are proposing was totally different from the amendment which was so resoundingly won last year. It is not totally different: it is simply trying to find a different way to deal with the same people. It is a matter on which many doubts have been raised, even this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Moyne, said that the Government are putting in an extra £10 million. Once again I must repeat that any extra money made available to the Housing Corporation or a housing association will come off the housing programme, which has been reduced. This is one of the important points.

The Minister also said that the tenants are not receiving preferential treatment. Other noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Monson, have made the point that if a tenant has a right of choice of house and location, that is preferential treatment compared with the opportuntiy merely to buy the house in which he is living, which he may not particularly like, because he wants to exercise his right to home ownership. The Minister said that there are no losers, but there are losers: the taxpayers are the losers, because this is public money that is to be paid out by way of discount. That. I imagine, is why the noble Lord. Lord Monson, asked for an assurance (which he certainly did not receive) on the whole question of discount.

At times the Minister seems to talk about young people taking the opportunity. Then he says that the tenants are generally elderly or poor. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, quite rightly made the point that the provision is clumsy and awkward; and he showed. I thought, his dislike of the whole clause. However. I do not think there is any point in detaining the House further, and 1 commend the deletion of the clause from the Bill.

My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence about the Territorial Army. The Statement is as follows:

"The House will recall the Government's commitment to enhance our volunteer reserve forces. Two years ago my predecessor announced improvements in our support to the Territorial Army and our plans to expand it to 86,000 by 1990. I am now able to announce the second and more ambitious phase of these plans.

"In considering where and how to enhance the Territorial Army we have been guided by a number of principles. Most important is the operational requirement both in the European theatre and in home defence. We have also been conscious of recruiting potential, the availability of suitable facilities, and, in particular, the importance of the regimental traditions and local affiliations.

"Wherever appropriate, we have used the expansion plans to restructure and reorganise the Territorial Army infantry units. This will improve command and control and reduce their geographical spread, which has long been a matter of concern. Although final details remain to be decided, I can give the House an outline of our plans.

"We propose to raise six new infantry battalions: in North Yorkshire and Cleveland; in Yorkshire; in Greater Manchester and Cheshire; in Devon and Cornwall; in Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire; and in London. We intend to raise a new armoured reconnaissance squadron in the Newcastle area. A new air defence regiment will be formed in Scotland and a further battery added to each of the three existing regiments. All will be equipped with the Javelin guided missile.

"The House may be particularly interested to learn that we plan to form for the first time a Territorial Army Air Corps squadron, equipped with Scout helicopters. We shall also form new logistic and support units, including an ordnance unit in Bristol, a medical unit in Cambridge and a transport squadron in Wales.

"We plan also to enhance the Territorial Army's equipment. The number of guns in field artillery regiments will be increased. The infantry will recieve, along with its regular counterparts, the new anti-tank weapon LAW 80 and new small arms. TA battalions in the 2nd Infantry Division will be equipped with more mortars. Our plans are to be implemented from 1986 onwards. They are set out in greater detail in an Open Government document published today, which I have placed in the Vote Office.

"These measures will significantly increase our conventional capability, both in the United Kingdom and in Germany. They will stengthen the credibility of NATO's conventional deterrence. But for successful expansion the Territorial Army needs to recruit and retain its manpower. We are considering practical measures to assist in this, and have launched a major drive to increase employer support. I hope the House will join me in encouraging the employers of reserve soldiers to help and support them where they can.

"The Territorial Army provides over 25 per cent. of the Army's mobilised strength at a cost of only 4½ per cent. of the Army budget. The House will wish me to pay tribute to those who are already serving members of our volunteer reserves, not only in the Territorial Army, but in the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Marine Reserve, and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. These men and women devote much of their spare time to valuable service in the defence of our country. Their dedication deserves the full support of the House, and of the community at large. They are a symbol of the British people's commitment to NATO's defence."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement, and copies of the Open Government document are available now in the Printed Paper Office.

My Lords, the House will be grateful for the Statement, which is, of course, timely in view of changing trends and the greater sophistication of defence. The Minister has rightly referred to the weapons that will be in use. The House will, I am sure, welcome in particular the significant increase in our conventional capability, both in the United Kingdom and Germany, and also in the credibility of our NATO conventional deterrence. We note the fact that the TA provides over a quarter of the Army's mobilised strength at a cost of 4½ per cent. of the Army's budget. Can the Minister say what will be the increase in numbers if there are to be 86,000 by 1990? Has he any idea of the real cost? With regard to recruiting potential, this appears to refer to the pool of unemployed. Can the Minister report any progress on the young unemployed entering as part of the youth training scheme?

We also welcome the reference to the new air defence regiment and the Territorial Army Air Corps squadron. There will of course be interest in the maritime role. Although the Statement is not about reserves generally, will the Minister comment on that? We recognise that the Territorial Army depends not only on the dedication of those who are recruits and who join the forces, but also on their employers; and, indeed, reference is made to a scheme for a major drive with employers. I should also like to pay tribute to the fellow staff of those in jobs, as well as to the families of the volunteers, whose co-operation makes their work possible.

Finally, we pay tribute to the Territorial Army. While we recognise the traditions and the dedication of the territorial units in war and in peace, we recognise, too. their contribution to keeping our forces up to date. Doubtless noble Lords will be referring to certain areas of interest and to the traditions around the country. I have a particular interest, of course, in the Sherwood Foresters and the Gloucesters. But the service depends not only on traditions: it depends on the contribution which is to be made in the future, and the Statement reflects that need. I am sure we shall study the document in the Library with great interest.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is a happy occasion when the Secretary of State for Defence makes a proposal which is warmly supported by all the political parties? I am sure that my noble friends would want me to express our appreciation of those who give up their time for this voluntary service; to express our hope that recruitment will go well; and to urge employers to support those who make this type of sacrifice.

Is the noble Lord prepared to say that this move is at least a first step towards creating conditions in which NATO will never have to use nuclear weapons first in Europe? I should like to ask the noble Lord what the figures of recruitment have been in the last three years, and whether they are on target for 1990. I should also like to ask him about the date. I interpret the phrase, "from 1986 onwards", as meaning that nothing will be implemented for about three years from now. Is that due to manpower difficulties, or money? Finally, is the noble Lord aware that those with territorial experience know the great value of local loyalties, not only in recruitment but in raising and sustaining morale in battle?

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their most helpful reception of this Statement. Perhaps I can answer some of the points—particularly those that do not appear in the Open Government document—put to me by both noble Lords. First, let me deal with the point about numbers that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston. As the Statement says, it is proposed to increase the Territorial Army, starting in 1986. to 86,000. The present strength of the Territorial Army is something like 71,000, so we are looking to increase the numbers by about 15,000 over that period.

I should like to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, as to what is to happen between now and 1986. What my right honourable friend has announced today and what I have repeated is, of course, the second phase of territorial enhancements. Phase 1, which was announced by my right honourable friend Sir John Nott when he was Secretary of State for Defence, is of course already in hand and will be taking place between now and 1986. This is the second phase of the enhancements, which are to be put in train after the completion of the first phase. Incidentally, the cost of this second phase will be of the order of £140 million in capital terms, and about £30 million in annual costs thereafter. The present total cost of the Territorial Army is of the order of £220 million.

The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked me also about the NATO position of these forces. Of course a large number of the Territorial Army units are assigned to NATO and would, indeed, be sent to Germany when so required. That is why we are having "Exercise Lionheart" later this year, which will be a major exercise of territorial mobilisation, and no doubt will prove very valuable.

The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, referred also to local loyalties. We have gone to great lengths in formulating these plans to maintain the local loyalties which are so strong in many of these areas, not only for the reasons which the noble Lord mentioned but also, as I think he recognises, too, for purposes of recruitment, because they are, indeed, valuable in that context as well. Those are the principal points which have been put to me by noble Lords, but if there are any other I shall be happy to try to answer them.

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the most promising announcement that he has made. I should like to ask him whether the newspaper reports that one has read recently have been correct in mentioning the Fife and Forfar Yeomanry as one of the regiments that will be recreated. If I am right in that regard, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the Lothians and Border Horse are another yeomanry regiment of the utmost excellence.

My Lords, I am certain that my noble friend is correct in what he says, but I have to say that we are taking great care in the selection of the names of the new units, not least because of the intense rivalries, as witnessed by my noble friend's remarks.

My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister explain what he had in mind when he said that the infantry would be issued with a new type of small arm? What particular type of arm is that to be?

My Lords, new weapons are progressively being issued, both to the regular forces and, in due course, to the territorial units, and it is those weapons to which I referred. If the noble Lord would like more detail I shall be happy to write to him.

My Lords, a lot of us were brought up in the first war on the short Lee Enfield. Is that to be abolished and replaced by a different kind of rifle?

My Lords, I am sorry to have to tell the noble Lord that there are now no Lee Enfields available for issue.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those of us who, like myself and many of your Lordships, have served in the Territorial Army will very much welcome this Statement? Can my noble friend say whether the regiments which lost their identities under the 1957 White Paper will in any way be able to reclaim them, because this does so much for morale? Secondly, will there be an extension of overseas training? My noble friend made reference to NATO, but will there be an extension of camp training with units of the British Army of the Rhine and possibly in Cyprus and elsewhere?

My Lords, I have referred already to "Exercise Lionheart" which is to take place later this year and which, I think I am right in saying, will involve 130,000 or more soldiers, many of whom will be territorials. It ought to be said that overseas training presents something of a problem for territorials because, of course, their time is limited, and one wants to be sure that they do not spend too much of that valuable time travelling to or from their training areas. But wherever there is an opportunity for them to train effectively overseas—for example, in "Exercise Lionheart" this year—then that will be taken. But I cannot promise that there will be any great extension of overseas training for the territorials within the new proposals to which I am referring today.

As for the other matters raised earlier by my noble friend, I should tell him that all of those matters, particularly those relating to the names of the new units, are to be very carefully considered. However, I should warn my noble friend that there are a large number of competing claims for the names of these new units.

My Lords, bearing in mind what my noble friend Lord Kilmany has said, as I understood it the main thrust of the Statement was as regards the Air Force. I am quite certain that my noble friend the Minister will agree that the Scottish contribution to the Territorial Army has been much greater than that in the past, and I hope that not only will the suggestions of my noble friend Lord Kilmany be accepted but that there may be other efforts that the Scottish may make in this regard.

My Lords, we shall certainly want to do that. Indeed, the Statement contains a number of proposals in that direction.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that nothing could do more to increase the confidence and help the morale of those who are already serving their country in the Territorial Army than this expression of confidence by Her Majesty's Government in the reserve forces? If the reports in the newspapers are true, that the Government propose to reconstitute some of the old territorial regiments that have been lost, this will surely be a massive aid to recruitment. Finally, is it expected that there will be any comparable increase in second line service and transport units to match the increase in the infantry battalions?

My Lords, to answer the last of my noble friend's questions first, yes, there are some increases in the support units implicit in what we have announced today. For example, there will be another RCT squadron, another field ambulance and a new ordnance company, together with the other units that I have already mentioned. I certainly accept what my noble friend says, that the steps which we are taking should have some effect on recruitment. To be truthful, the problem is not so much one of securing a sufficient number of recruits for the Territorial Army as one of persuading them to remain in the Territorial Army for longer than they do at present. Retention is one of the difficulties that we are presently facing, and we are doing what we can to overcome that difficulty.

My Lords, I understand that the auxiliary air force will be given pilot training. Can my noble friend give some idea to what stage it is intended to take them?

My Lords, I did not say that the Royal Auxiliary Air Force is to be given pilot training, although that is a matter that is under consideration. I said that there will be a new Army Air Corps squadron flying helicopters. It is anticipated that the pilots for that squadron will, in fact, be those with former Army Air Corps experience, and are not likely, therefore, to be trained from scratch. On the point of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, that is a matter which we are considering further.

My Lords, I should like to clear up one point. Did I understand my noble friend to say that there would be no new territorial battalion recruited in Scotland?

No, my Lords, that is not so.

moved Amendment No. 51:

Page 35, line 28. leave out ("paragraph 3 shall be omitted and").

My Lords, we talked about Amendment No. 53 previoulsy. I wonder whether the noble Baroness, in what she has just said, was referring also to Amendment No. 157 which I had understood might be covered.

Yes, my Lords.

My Lords, I believe that the landlords' interests will be adequately safeguarded under the arrangements we are now proposing. The question is whether landlords will be in a position to gain possession of such dwellings when they need to do so for operational reasons. There are three grounds for possession that I think are particularly relevant. First, the new Ground 9A (in Clause 24) will enable the landlord to gain possession if he requires a dwelling for letting to new employees. Second, new Ground 5B (in Amendment No. 40) will enable him to gain possession where an occupant of the dwelling has behaved in a way likely to put at risk the function of the building. Third, Ground 8 (in the existing legislation) will enable the landlord to gain possession where he requires to do so in order to redevelop or to carry out works to the building.

I said in Committee that I should be happy to reconsider, if your Lordships so wished, pressing the case for the retention of paragraph 3 of Schedule 3. I am as concerned as anyone that we should do nothing to prejudice the effective operation of premises used for social service and education service. But we must not lose sight of the fact that tenant employees also have a right to expect some security to the extent that this does not conflict with basic functional necessities. I have listened carefully to what the noble Baroness has said and I have fully considered representations received since Committee. Given the safeguards that I have mentioned, I am still not persuaded of the case for retaining paragraph 3.

Under the Government proposals social service and education authorities will be in a position to gain possession of a curtilage dwelling where it is important that they should do so for operational reasons. In other cases, what we are proposing will give employee tenants an added security which I believe they have every right to expect.

When we are talking about the educational matter, I think that I should make it clear and perhaps say a word or two about police and fire authority housing. A special exception is needed for police because police officers are not covered by paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 because they are officers of the Crown and are not employees. The provision regarding firemen is geared to—and this is the point—day manning arrangements which are gradually being introduced in some areas to replace shift arrangements. The noble Baroness moves her head signifying that she does not disagree. But what 1 have said is so. Whether or not it impacts sufficiently upon her case is a different matter; but that is what is happening as far as the fire service goes and the police situation is as I have described it.

What more is there to say beyond what I said last time about Amendment No. 53 and education? I could repeat what I said then. I am sure the noble Baroness does not particularly want me to do that. She asked whether I would look again, still talking about the fire matter and about premises in close proximity. Of course, she knows I will certainly do that. I want to be absolutely clear that there is no difference between us as to the facts of the matter. I will look at that. As far as the amendment is concerned—and I am referring to Amendment No. 53 as well—I am trying to avoid going over what I have said before, hence my hesitency; but I think that what is very important here is that there should be no possible proposals—and I do not think the noble Baroness intends this—which would deprive certain tenants of the statutory security which they have enjoyed since 1980.

There is a world of difference between giving an additional right and taking one away. I am sure that that is not the noble Baroness's intention but that would be the effect as far as Amendment No. 53 is concerned. If the noble Baroness would like me to elaborate on these arguments, I would be happy to do so. I have copious notes to hand; but I am sure that this is not the intention either. May I say that we have considered this very carefully; and the noble Baroness will know that my noble friend Lady Faithfull has been very anxious in this area, too—

My Lords, cemeteries.

My Lords, cemeteries as well. The noble Baroness will have to take it from me that she has spoken to me about all matters of this kind which are of concern to her. I want to say that we have considered very carefully what provisions are appropriate to ensure that landlords retain control over dwellings which are needed for operational purposes, and at the same time we are conscious not to ride roughshod over the reasonable expectations of tenants, and certainly not to deprive them of the rights which were conferred in 1980—which is what Amendment No. 53 would do. I am sorry I cannot be more helpful. 1 know that the noble Baroness raises these matters in good faith because of her concern. This happens to be an area where I share that concern. I really think that her fears are groundless.

My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister look again at what I have said? Perhaps I could discuss two points with him which I feel that perhaps I did not explain fully. If I explain them to him privately it may be helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I have to point out that if Amendment No. 52 is agreed to. I cannot call Amendment No. 53.

:Amendment No. 52:

moved Amendment No. 55:

moved Amendment No. 56:

My Lords, I have already described at some length in Committee our insurance proposals under this Bill. I readily take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that these are complicated. I explained the two alternative routes down which the Bill allowed us to go: under either subsection (6) or subsection (7) of Clause 36, as it is now numbered. Our current thinking remains that subsection (6) is the right way forward. Amendment No. 56 would delete this subsection, however, leaving no option but to make regulations under subsection (7).

Amendment No. 57 is merely consequential; and Amendment No. 58 would suggest the alteration of the word "may" to the word "shall". I would assume that is intended to make certain that regulations imposing requirements for insurance are made before certification is introduced. I assume also, first, that I am correct, and, secondly, that the noble Lord intended to speak to all three amendments together.

Yes, my Lords.

However, as I explained in Committee, certification under Clause 36 will not—this is the important point—and cannot begin until either insurance regulations are made prescribing the cover to be required or else a specific scheme or schemes has or have been approved for the purpose by the Secretary of State. If there were to be no insurance schemes, then regulations would have to be made for certification to be possible. This is because subsection (1) of this clause requires that an initial notice will have to be accompanied by prescribed evidence of insurance. Failure to provide such evidence will be one of the grounds on which the local authority will have to reject the notice, so there can be no chance of an inspector supervising work without the necessary insurance. Amendment No. 58 is therefore un-necessary.

I have already explained that for the present we propose to rely on approved schemes. When the market has developed we may be able to make regulations, but we are not at that stage yet. The amendments, by forcing us to make regulations at the outset, would mean that we would have to do so without experience of the new system in practice. There could be a risk, therefore, that an insurer could find a loophole in such regulations which allowed him quite legally to provide cover which was not adequate to protect owners or third parties. By approving schemes, however, the Secretary of State will be able to vet every proposal for insurance and to ensure that it meets the letter as well as the spirit of the requirements set out in our guidelines, which I described in Committee.

The key question of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, was: is it possible for the Secretary of State to withdraw such approval for a scheme? The answer is, Yes; and I am sure that, with that proviso, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful each time the Minister gives more information on the progress of overcoming the problems involved, so that those outside may feel satisfied that the best is being made of a very bad job. The Minister must be aware that those outside have the greatest unease about the insurance aspect of this part of the Bill, as opposed to many others. There is violent disagreement about certain other matters, but there is unease and fear that there could be some (if I were to use emotive words perhaps I might be out of order) possibility that something dreadful might happen because the insurance side has not been got right. This causes great unease outside the House. The Government have decided that this is the way they want to do it, so theirs is the responsibility. But the unease does exist, and the Minister will know that I am not carrying tales because he will understand that the great unease felt outside needs to be drawn constantly to the attention of the Minister and his advisers, to remind them that the quicker they are able to satisfy the interests outside—that is everybody; not just the party or association, but the insurance industry as well—then the better will be their lot in implementing the legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 59:

My Lords, I support the amendment. At Committee stage, the Minister was kind enough to invite the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and me to discuss the matter with him. We had a very productive hour in his office during which we went over the ground. Although we were unable to persuade him and although he was unable to persuade us, this does not alter the fact that there is understanding about the point we are making. We are trying to find a form of words that will meet a situation which may not arise very often but of which we need to take account. This is because of the size of and the wide range of attitudes in the building industry.

We want to take account of a situation in which a builder may decide, for his own good reasons, to dismiss an approved inspector, without there being absolute clarity about it. The Minister carefully pointed out to us that because of the consequences and difficulties which would ensue, it was unlikely that a developer would take lightly such a dismissal. May I pray in aid of our case the letter which the Minister wrote after our meeting to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. In discussing the kind of problems which would exist over the form of words, the Minister said:

"If the authority nominated an inspector who was subsequently proved to have acted negligently, what would the council's liability be?"

If a developer appoints an approved inspector who is dismissed for what are considered to be uncertain reasons, we say that in those circumstances the local authority should have the power to appoint somebody else. The Minister asked: if the inspector who is appointed by the authority turns out to have acted negligently, what would the liability of the council be? It would be the same as it is now. Every inspector of buildings is now appointed and employed by the local authority. If he is negligent, the local authority has to carry the responsibility. We are trying to ensure the future right of the local authority to be involved. In the case of all forms of authority there must be responsibility.

The Minister went on to say in his letter:

"Secondly, we would, in effect, be asking the council to take a judgment on the competence of individual approved inspectors—turning down one and instructing developers to give work to another".

The Minister is quite happy to say to the approved bodies that they will have the right to work out their own system of approving approved inspectors, and whoever they appoint will be "franked" by the Secretary of State. We believe that local authorities are perfectly competent to compile lists of approved inspectors who have already been "franked" by their approved body, be they members of the RIBA or of the relevant engineering and surveying institutions. They have already had to pass a number of tests and prove their competence. We believe that local authorities are perfectly able to compile such lists.

Part of the Minister's case is that if a local authority or anybody else has reason to believe that an inspector has been too lax it can tell the designated body which approved that inspector. We ought not to start off on the premise that part of the job of a local authority is to monitor the efficiency of approved inspectors. That should be the job of the designating body. More than once the Minister has quite rightly said that the RIBA will very jealously protect their own integrity. We do not believe that this should be the job of the local authorities. Unless the noble Lord the Minister is able to satisfy us that there is no need for these words, if the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, presses his amendment, we shall support him in the Division Lobbies.

My Lords, at the Committee stage I explained the sequence of events which take place when an approved inspector cancels his initial notice and either a second inspector or the local authority takes over responsibility for the work. If, instead, the developer sacks his inspector, he has the same options of looking for a second inspector or of going to the local authority. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said, this amendment would remove the developer's choice in those circumstances and instead empower the local authority to decide whether to allow a second approved inspector to take over the work. If they did so allow, the authority would have the option of nominating which inspector should take on the job.

Perhaps I might dispose here of the last point which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, made. He referred to nomination being the same as nomination by an approved body. In fact, it is quite different. In the second case—nomination by an approved body—there is an open choice to be made by the developer or, under the amendment, by the council, whereas the amendment means the nomination of an individual. Therefore freedom of choice is very much restricted by the amendment.

I very much appreciate the noble Viscount's concern about this point, not least because we discussed it at some length outside the House during the meeting referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I accept entirely the fundamental concern which I know underlies the amendment; namely, that building work should be supervised by an impartial, properly qualified inspector to ensure that it meets the required standards of health and safety. However, the Government firmly believe that this objective will be achieved by the Bill as it is now drafted.

For a number of reasons we cannot accept the ideas behind the amendment. First, there is the problem that by imposing on a local authority the obligation to make a judgment about the quality of the building work and the chances of it being carried through to satisfactory' completion we shall be opening up a new field of potential liability. If the authority nominated an inspector who was subsequently proved to have acted negligently, what would the council's liability be? This point was mentioned in the letter which I sent to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, which has just been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, answered my question by saying that it would be the same as under the current scheme. This is not so. The difference is that in the case we have postulated—that of a second inspector, whether council nominated or otherwise—the second inspector would not always have been concerned with the project whereas, under the current scheme, the local authority would have been. The local authority has no reason to take an interest in the work and it will not, and should not, bear any responsibility for that work. This amendment, however, would put local authorities at risk of liability for work which they had not supervised. I very much doubt whether the local authorities would welcome it.

Secondly, we should also be asking councils to take a judgment on the competence of individual approved inspectors—turning down one and instructing developers to give work to another. I have already explained the difference between the ideas of the Government and those of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. Even so, this looks invidious and it is hard to see how local authorities could make such judgments on any very clear or secure grounds. It is the bodies which are to approve the inspectors which would have evidence of individual qualifications and experience. It is on the basis of that information that they would have taken the decision to approve any particular inspector. As I explained in Committee (at col. 446 of Hansard) if a local authority, or anyone else, had reason to believe that an inspector was too lax, they could tell the designated body which approved him. It is then up to the designating body to consider whether to withdraw his approval, which they can do at any time. Any designated body will be concerned to preserve its own reputation, without which its designation would be unlikely to last very long. Before designating bodies, we will want to be satisfied that they have suitable disciplinary arrange-ments.

I must also emphasise that I believe the problem will arise less frequently than noble Lords may expect, because of the practical difficulty of giving an "interim certificate" for a half-completed building. Sheer economic necessity will, in virtually all cases, force a developer to stay with the approved inspector he chose first, even though he may think that the inspector is being too rigorous.

The noble Viscount, however, was concerned about the other extreme; namely, an approved inspector who was too "pliable". Every approved inspector, though, will in fact be acting under a statutory duty, and legally responsible for his actions and judgments; and this should not be taken lightly. If an inspector were to co-operate—which, your Lordships will understand, is a euphemism—to the extent of knowingly or recklessly issuing a notice or certificate containing a false or misleading statement, he would be committing an offence under Clause 46. Not only would he be liable to a fine and/or imprisonment: he would, on conviction, automatically lose his approval for at least five years. In a case where an inspector merely acquired a reputation of being easy-going, the designated body which approved him could consider withdrawing that approval at any time. I believe that the professional institutions that we have in mind as possible designated bodies will be very concerned to maintain their reputation, by exercising their full responsibility under this Bill.

In any case, I believe it is wrong to expect that developers will always want to cut corners and to produce buildings that contravene the regulations. In short, we believe the way to ensure that buildings supervised by approved inspectors are safe is to have proper procedures for vetting applicants in the first place, with power to withdraw approval if appropriate. Since we are now proposing that approvals will be given for five-year periods, there will be an automatic review process built into the system. To follow some of the draconian ideas proposed in the amendment would. I feel, be quite wrong.

My Lords, one point that has worried me about the independent inspectors is this. Supposing there are inspectors who are a little easier than others: as I understand it, that is the problem which worries the noble Viscount. What does one do in that situation? One dismisses one man, knowing that his replacement might take a slightly different view of some particular aspect of architecture. This can be quite a small matter. I am not talking about fraud or anything of that sort, but somebody else may be a little easier in some respects. My noble friend's answer to that is, "All our inspectors will be so grand and wonderful that they will never make mistakes and will never disagree on personal grounds, whoever the developer is". Of course they will disagree, and they will say, "I don't like this chap. I don't like his approach".

This is really an astonishingly innocuous amendment. All that happens here is that one dismisses the inspector and reports it to the local authority. That is the first step. One obviously has to have a conversation about the whys and the wherefores. One does not know what the local authority will say. They may say, "Take our chap", or they may say, "Appoint another inspector yourself. But one will have reported the matter to the local authority. If the local authority knows that Mr. Bloggins is always being asked, the local authority will grow a little suspicious that Mr. Bloggins is an easy-going chap.

My noble friend questioned the liability of the local authority. If a local authority nominates a well-qualified man, I cannot believe that any liability would rest on the local authority. My noble friend may have taken legal advice on this point, but I would have thought that in the case of a highly-qualified man, the local authority would not be left with any liability.

One could have the situation where one inspector is unsatisfactory from the point of view of the developer, who then appoints another inspector. My noble friend says that this is all right because all inspectors will be perfectly qualified. Is he really satisfied with that situation? I should like to go a step further. As far as I know, many of the inspectors will be appointed by the Secretary of State. If something goes wrong, one will have to apply to the Secretary of State, and not to one of the professional organisations. If I may say so, an application to the Secretary of State is rather a laborious way of dealing with this problem. My noble friend has given his views and I do not expect he will change them; but I am telling him quite frankly what my anxieties are.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will answer my noble friend's points. He questioned whether all approved inspectors will be properly qualified. Certainly they will be—otherwise the designating body would not be confirmed by the Secretary of State in the first place. That is why I placed quite a large measure of reliance in my reply on the powers and policing ability of the designating bodies.

My noble friend asked also whether the local authority will get to know of any upset with an approved inspector. The answer is, yes. In order to appoint a new approved inspector, the initial notice—which is individual to an inspector—would have to be cancelled and a new initial notice would have to be taken out for the further work. The key problem which my noble friend identified was that the developer might dismiss a strict inspector in order to use a rather easier one. In practice, I believe it is unlikely that this will happen. In the way that we see this provision operating, the approved inspector will have a contract from the developer. If the contract is broken, there will be a financial sanction against the developer and all the difficulties which always come in any situation where one replaces one man with another. Although I appreciate my noble friend's concern, there is not quite so much in it as he makes out.

My Lords, I am afraid that the Minister has said almost nothing new and almost nothing that I have not already dealt with. There was, however, his last point that a contract might perhaps exist between an inspector and a developer; but there still remains the possibility of the inspector himself resigning.

I do not mean to be unkind, but when the Minister talks about the inspecting authority succeeding in eliminating unsatisfactory or corrupt inspectors except in the very long term, it makes me believe that his advisers must be living in an ivory tower and have no idea of the corruption which occurs all around us today—even in the best-run circles. If we look at the newspapers, we can see that over the past year or so there is no profession where corruption has not occurred—even in the medical profession, which should be more ethical than most. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has already said, the building industry is a difficult profession for various reasons. I do not blame them, but corruption can occur there perhaps more easily than it can in many other places.

One has to realise that only in extreme cases, as I have said already, can a case of dishonesty be brought to the courts and proved. Even then, one faces the possibility or probability of an appeal. Taking such a case to the court will not work unless the offence was really blatant. I offer one compromise, if the noble Lord will agree. I would cut the amendment down to say simply that the council shall,

"having regard to all the circumstances, decide whether it is desirable for them to take on the inspection work".

That would satisfy me completely.

I suspect that the noble Lord will say that a great deal of the purpose of this part of the Bill is to avoid the local authority taking over work, that they wanted them to be in competition, with independent inspectors, and that they want their staff reduced. To be perfectly fair, of course they are already overworked in some places. But the noble Lord really cannot have it both ways. If he says that these circumstances are very unlikely to arise, when they do arise there is then no harm in the local authority taking over.

I hope that the Minister will agree to look at this very important matter. It is perhaps not as important as some other issues we have dealt with in the Bill, but in this day and age we must do everything that we can to prevent corruption. That is very important. I must say that it is not very desirable that arguments which have so little weight should be put forward against the amendment. I should like the Minister to say whether he can meet me; otherwise, I am afraid I shall have to press this amendment.

My Lords, again with the leave of the House, I do not think it is quite right for the noble Viscount to put words into my mouth and suggest what I might have said if I had been asked a particular question. However, he was asking whether under the new circumstances which might prevail at another stage I should feel able to accept an amendment such as he has just described. I am afraid the answer is, "No".

My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Viscount—

Order!

My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I ask the noble Viscount, in considering an improvement in the drafting of his amendment, whether he could find a more appropriate word than "employer". It is not an "employer". The parties enter into a contract in regard to charges. There is not an "employer" either in the ordinary sense of the word or in the specialised sense which it bears in the building industry. If the noble Viscount is to redraft his amendment, perhaps he could take care of that.

My Lords, I am certain that the noble Lord is aware that any amendment one puts forward is always defective in one way or another. Certainly if I am lucky enough to win the Division I shall take any necessary steps to tidy up the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 60:

moved Amendment No. 61:

Page 40, line 13, leave out paragraph (b), and insert ("(b) by the Joint Board").

My Lords, before my noble friend the Minister replies, may I say a word on this matter? As I understand it, we are taking a number of amendments together. The purpose of the fasciculus of amendments and new clauses which we are taking is that it adds to the administrative machinery of administering building controls other than by local authorities. The danger of it is that it adds unnecessarily to the mechanism of private control, thereby prejudicing the chances of success of such private control. That may not be a serious disadvantage in the eyes of noble Lords opposite, who are basically opposed to any system of alternative control, and indeed it may be a positive advantage—I hope that this is not a cynical observation—if they can point to the cumbrous machinery and expense as a justification for retaining the monopoly of control with the local authorities. However, those who want to see an alternative scheme of control—that is the principle of this part of the Bill, as accepted by Parliament—are entitled to say that the onus rests on those who put forward the proposal to show both its necessity and its viability; and in my respectful submission that onus is not discharged.

There is of course a tendency nowadays for every problem to be met by setting up a committee, a council, a commission or a board, following the false syllogism that something must be done: this is something; let us do it. At the Committee stage a council was proposed, and now a board, no less—the Building Control Joint Board. But however grandiose the concept and nomenclature, there is still an onus on those putting the concept forward, first, to establish its necessity and, secondly, to identify its logistical structure.

So far as the logistics of this are concerned, they are far from clear in the new clause. Subsection (2) deals with membership—the members are to be appointed by the Secretary of State—but there is no guidance as to the qualities or qualifications desired or expected. It is silent also on the important question of remuneration. It seems to me that the scheme might well end up paying some people—the same people, indeed—to do work which they would be prepared to do for nothing under the Bill as unamended. Then there is the cost of office premises for the board. It is clear that it will have to have offices where people can inspect the register and for other purposes. I should like to ask noble Lords opposite what costings were in fact done before the amendments and new clauses were tabled, and what consideration was given to budgeting these schemes. At the end of the day, the taxpayer will have to pay for them.

Until and unless these questions are answered and a stronger case can be made for the advantages accruing from such a board, I would submit that the proposal is premature at the least. After all, it is much easier to set up such a board than to get rid of it if it proves to be otiose, unsatisfactory or to cost too much.

Therefore, it would surely be best to give the arrangements as promulgated in the Bill a reasonable chance to work. I hope, and I think, that they will work, but if they do not it would be very easy to add the machinery proposed in these amendments. The noble Lord on the Front Bench here, and indeed the Secretary of State, whom I have known, admired and respected since he was a pupil at the Bar, will, I am sure, review the matters objectively on their facts with an open mind and bring forward any amending legislation which may be shown to be desirable, which has so far not been shown. There certainly would be no difficulty in arranging the passage to the statute book of such a measure since, of course, they would be picking up a proposal originally emanating from the other side. But that time is not yet. There is no need for such a board at present. If this amendment is persevered with, I hope that it will be resisted.

My Lords, not for the first time my noble friend Lord Broxbourne has put his finger squarely on the first point that I wanted to make. As I said in Committee, the Government do not see the need for a quango, and, make no mistake, this is exactly what is proposed, even though the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, made some reference—at least I think that it was him—in Committee, to a part-time organisation which would not have to operate continuously.

Many of the main professional institutions which we have consulted have said that they wish to become designated bodies, and they are continuing their discussions on these standards and possible grades of inspectors with a view to reaching agreement among themselves. In particular they agree the need for a common syllabus on which candidates for approval would be tested on their knowledge of the various regulations and approved documents. Our consultations with these institutions will continue, and we have no intention of doing away with the power of the Secretary of State to designate those which he considers appropriate. Even though he would still have the power to approve individual inspectors, he does not intend to do this, since it is a job far better suited to the relevant institutions.

Of the group amendments we are considering, I think I am right in saying that only Amendments Nos. 63 and 70 are in fact new, so I shall address my remarks to them. Among other things, they would set minimum periods of experience to qualify as an inspector, and require the joint board to examine candidates, not directly for approval, but for something called a "certificate of proficiency". It is not clear what purpose this certificate would serve, or indeed how it would relate to the "practising certificate" envisaged by the amendment.

In any case, the questions of the criteria and procedures for approval are being considered by the professional institutions in discussion with the department. It would make no sense to impose these arbitrary restrictions on approval before the bodies most directly concerned have completed their deliberations on, for example, the period of experience needed for approval. When agreement has been reached on these matters, they can be enforced by the simple expedient of designating only bodies which agree to comply with them.

The noble Lord, Lord Graham, by implication anyway, mentioned the subject of the unattached architects. Amendment No. 62 would require the Secretary of State to designate ARCUK for the purpose of approving architects, presumably so that the unattached architects could be approved without approaching a professional institution. However, as I told the Committee some days ago, ARCUK indicated at an early stage that it did not feel it would be possible to involve itself in this matter, which could better be dealt with by the professional bodies. We have continued to keep ARCUK informed by sending them copies of all our consultation documents, but I understand that their council's view remains that it is not a job for that organisation.

Included among the group of amendments which we are considering is Amendment No. 68, which aims to define the manner in which the proposed board would issue so-called practising certificates to inspectors who applied to them for approval. Such certificates would only be valid for one year. The board would have the power to cancel a certificate over a shorter period but no power to extend it beyond a year. I have already made reference to this this afternoon, and all I think I need say at this stage is that we do not see any justification for such a complicated and bureaucratic procedure. Quite apart from our objection to the idea of the board itself, we doubt the need for approval to be subject to annual renewal but have concluded, following our discussions with the institutions, that a period of five years would be appropriate. Our draft regulations provide for this.

In other words, what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, in moving this amendment, is seeking to achieve will, I believe, be achieved by the system we have designed. Therefore a board such as is referred to will not be necessary.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. This is a good idea, whose time has not yet come. It is quite clear from what was said by my good friend Lord Broxbourne and others that there is understanding as to what is sought to be achieved but that it is not necessary in the present circumstances. I am aware of a meeting in December at the Ministry when all the options were canvassed and there were some very strong views from a limited number of bodies which just said they would not participate, they would not take part in a joint board arrangement, they wanted to control their own affairs. Those voices were very powerful inside the Ministry and they prevailed. But, as far as we are concerned on this side of the House, we are satisfied that this matter will be kept under review.

So far as a quango or other body is concerned, no costings have been made. There are difficulties but, quite frankly, when you are dealing with an industry that has turnovers, not of millions or hundreds of millions but of thousands of millions, to inject a cost which may or may not be seen to be crucial to maintaining equity and good sense would be of very small moment indeed. But I am satisfied the matter is not yet lost. It certainly will be pursued and we will await the outcome of developments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 67:

My Lords, I am satisfied that it would be good practice for house builders to give the new owner all the necessary details about the construction and running of their home. Indeed, I have said as much in Committee. But I do not think that it is a proper subject for inclusion as an extra clause in this Bill. Indeed, some such manual is to be provided by the National House Building Council. I certainly undertake to include the point of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, in any discussions, at whatever level and with whichever group of members, I can.

My Lords, I am grateful but I hope that the Minister does not treat lightly the seriousness that the inter-departmental committee is a proper forum in which this matter could be discussed. There is a host of problems—and I do not wish him to get to his feet again—but I hope he and his colleagues will in actual fact simply draw the attention of the inter-departmental committee to the debate on these matters in this House and another House and ask that they be seriously considered. They are considered important by a lot of people outside this House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 73:

moved Amendment No. 76:

Page 51, line 9, after ("In") insert ("subsection (1) of).

moved Amendment No. 77:

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 78:

moved Amendment No. 87:

Page 53, line 33, leave out ("subsections") and insert ("subsection").

moved Amendment No. 88:

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 89:

My Lords, this amendment is to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin.

My Lords, the noble Lord rose to his feet so smartly that I was not quite able to rise quickly enough. I am afraid that this amendment will take rather longer to describe than have previous amendments. What I have to say relates to Amendments Nos. 89, 91, 92, 93 and 155.

Amendment No. 91: Clause 61, page 57, line 33, leave out ("and 53(2)") and insert ("53(2) and (Charges by local authorities for performing functions relating to building regulations)")

Amendment No. 92: Page 57, line 37, leave out from first ("the") to end of line 38 and insert ("repeals of section 67 of the Public Health Act 1936 and section 62(3) of the said Act of 1974")

>

Amendment No. 93: Page 58, line 2, at end insert ("; and different days may be so appointed for different provisions or for different purposes")

Amendment No. 155: Schedule 12, page 98, line 4, column 3, at end insert— ("Section 62(3).")

The introduction of private sector competition into the building control system will create a completely new situation in that there has previously been no alternative to control by the local authorities. As I have said several times, we mean the alternatives to be genuine options affording the developer a choice between two systems, each of which is paid for by the people who use it. without subsidy from the generality of ratepayers and taxpayers.

Under the present system, the Secretary of State prescribes fees in relation to the total costs of building control in all the local authorities in England and Wales. As the volume of work and the mix of building varies from one authority to another, the fees produce, for individual authorities, different proportions of their costs. It is not only more equitable to let authorities set their own fees and present a true picture of the cost of service in their own districts; it will also be a valuable spur to efficiency within local authorities. They will not be able, as they now do, to assume that any short-fall in income can be thrown into the balance for the calculation of the rate support grant settlement. Also among the benefits that I foresee is an enhancement of the professional status of building inspectors in line with the extra professional-ism that the new system of building regulations will require.

The underlying principles which we have in mind at present to prescribe for local authority schemes of fees are as follows. The charges will be related to some characteristic of the work controlled, such as the type of building or its size, or the cost of its construction; the revenue to be raised shall be neither more nor less than the cost of performing the function of control; and the revenue raised from the control of dwellings shall neither subsidise, nor be subsidised by, functions relating to other work. These are broadly similar to the principles which underlie the arrangements regarding, for example, setting water charges locally under the Water Act.

Amendments Nos. 91, 92 and 155 provide that the new clause (dealing with charges by local authorities for performing functions relating to building regulations) shall be brought into effect by commencement order. The new system of control will be allowed time to settle down, and there will be full consultation on the details of the arrangements before the fees system is changed, so that local authorities may make a reasonable estimate of their costs in the first year of operation. When the new fees schemes are brought in, Section 62(3) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, under which the Secretary of State prescribes fees, will be repealed.

Amendment No. 92 also incorporates another technical correction. Clause 54 repeals a number of unwanted provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and in consequence of one of these part of Section 69 of the 1974 Act is repealed. At present the Bill unnecessarily provides for a commencement order for this consequential repeal. The amendment allows it to take effect with the rest of the Bill.

Amendment No. 93 will enable those provisions of the Bill which require commencement orders for their coming into effect—that is, those in Clause 61(2)(a). (b) and (c)—to be brought into effect on different dates. I beg to move.

My Lords, the purpose of this series of amendments is to take very careful account of the disparity which would exist between the estimates of the cost of the new system compared with the cost of the old system. The Minister and his advisers are well aware that attempts by a range of bodies with experience to calculate the cost in future have produced estimates ranging from twice to three times or four times the cost of the present service. So let us make no mistake about it: the ministry and those who are concerned are very sensitive about the fact that the new system will cost more, and the Government have sought to diminish that charge by increasing the cost of the public service. It is as simple as that. What the Government are about is avoiding too much embarrassment in the future, while at the same time moving towards a concept—which, I say to the Minister, I accept they indicated some time previously—in which these are the kind of services which eventually will have to pay their way.

The Minister used some effective phrases to illustrate his argument. He said that when they finally see the light of day, the charges will be related to a system which will be designed to produce no more and no less a sum of money than is necessary for the service to pay its way. Of course, we must always be very careful about figures, but according to figures I have, in the year 1982–83 the amount received from building control fees was £36 million, as against a cost of £61 million.

One of the objectives is substantially to increase the cost to the public, and I realise that in this instance the public are a disparate range of individuals and organisations. Last year, ending December 1983, building control fees were increased but by only 7 per cent. Will the Minister confirm that whether it be in one stage or two stages, the cost of the public service in future is likely to be increased by 20, 25, or maybe 50 per cent. above the present figures? If that is the case, why does not the Minister take this opportunity to say so?'

The Minister believes that there will be an attempt to encourage authorities to become more efficient, and if that is the case we shall see inequality in the charges made as between one authority and another. The Minister will be aware that Amendment No. 65 (which I did not move so that I could concentrate on this amendment) sought to have a range of charges prescribed. Quite frankly, I think it would be reprehensible if charges for building control services were to vary from one authority to another, with a great range of different figures.

We believe that the purpose of this amendment, this new attempt by the Government to impose an increase in costs to the public, is—I repeat and underline—to avoid embarrassment in the near future over disparate charges, if the scheme ever sees the light of day. We believe that it will further undermine the quality of the local authority building control service, and I suspect that that would not cause the Government too much loss of sleep, since it is quite clear that once the Bill becomes law, the Government will be determined to try to show the new system in as good a light as possible. The local authority will be left to maintain as big a staff as it can in order to try to deal with the possibility of work in which it has not been involved being referred to it. All told, we believe that this is a very bad series of amendments. I shall delay a decision on the determination of these matters until the Minister has responded to the points 1 have raised.

My Lords, I thought I was wise to take a little more trouble over this series of amendments. I should like first to make the point that responsibility to fix their own fees will not be forced upon local authorities at short notice. Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 to Clause 61 would allow the Secretary of State to set a separate commencement day for this purpose. It will be brought into effect only after there has been significant experience of the new system in operation; so authorities will have opportunities to adjust their resources to an accurate assessment of the task facing them.

The duty to prepare schemes of fees is a duty to plan sensibly. It is not an absolute requirement to cover all costs to the precise penny every year. If the number of applications to an authority was to fall to a very low level, the unit costs per case would obviously be high. But that would be a serious reflection upon the standard of service offered by that authority. If the local authority service is as good and of as much value as the Opposition say, there will be no shortage of customers. I can certainly give that assurance.

The noble Lord asked whether costs would be two times, three times or four times those of the present system. At the moment, we already have a system of partial recovery of fees for building regulations. This will enable local authorities fairly to charge the full cost of administering the regulations, and there is also the provision in the Bill for approved inspectors to do so. In other words, there will be direct price competion. As to whether some local authorities will charge more than others, I suggest that this is also a spur to efficiency between the local authorities, which the noble Lord will surely agree is no bad thing.

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he be good enough to give consideration to two related points in the proposed regulations? Can he kindly see whether it is possible to introduce some caution against any cross-subsidisation by local authorities in respect of their charges from other housing services? Secondly, can he ensure that the regulations include a notional element for insurance premium? My noble friend will, I think, appreciate that these two things are requisite if there is not to be an imbalance and possible distortion between the charges by local authorities and those in the private sector controlled scheme, to the disadvantage of the latter.

My Lords, although I have only just heard for the first time the idea proposed by my noble friend, he makes a valuable point which I shall certainly consider with my advisers. Obviously, since I am being slightly "bounced" by this one, I cannot give him any such commitment at this stage.

My Lords, the phrases that the Minister has used are again very revealing. The noble Lord says that time will be given to local authorities to adjust their resources. What he really means is to increase their charges. According to the Government, a time will come, on a date not announced, when they will bring forward this proposal. If that fact is noted and charges are increased accordingly, they say, this will be all to the good. The noble Lord also indicated that all he was doing was to give local authorities freedom to fix their own charges. But the House and others know what that freedom has meant in respect of school meals, transport and other issues. Of course—

My Lords, I am sorry; I was getting side-tracked by the noble Lord's questions. But this is, in fact, Report stage. I have moved the amendment and spoken again in winding up. A detailed speech by the noble Lord at this stage would therefore not be appropriate, perhaps.

My Lords, I apologise. With the leave of the House, so far as I am concerned the response of the Minister has been quite unsatisfactory. The noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, has fairly raised the possibility that cross-subsidisation could be exercised by one authority to help to keep down the costs. This is always possible. In our view, the amendment is a deliberate attempt to try to reduce what we consider will be alarm in the future when the disparity between local authority costs and the new system—the amount will be punitive because of the need for the inspector to take out insurance—is revealed as far too high. In view of that, I shall be pressing Amendment No. 89.

My Lords, I am rather at a loss. I thought it was a Government amendment.