1255
Hong Kong
[BARONESS CHALKER OF WALLASEY]
[LORDS]
contain any practical proposals for either the local elections in 1994 or the Legislative Council elections in 1995. That is why the Governor has had to put forward the proposals to LEGCO.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I wish to raise a point of clarification. I am sorry to come back to this phrase but it worries me somewhat as to what it actually means. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can address her mind to it again.
"But the key point is that the electoral arrangements in Hong Kong should be fair, open and acceptable to the people of Hong Kong".
What does that mean? If it means anything it means that the Hong Kong people at some stage will be asked whether or not the electoral arrangements are acceptable. I did not know that we were getting into the prospect of tests of acceptability of these proposals in Hong Kong. If it does not mean that, can the noble Baroness tell us what it does mean?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord may be trying to make more out of that than is necessary. We simply mean that the Legislative Council, which represents the people of Hong Kong and which is elected to represent the people of Hong Kong, must have a say in this matter. The proposals must be acceptable to the Legislative Council and the whole system must be fair and open.
Housing and Urban Development Bill
5.5 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 5. [Amendments Nos. 28 to 34 not moved.]
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): I should mention that if Amendment No. 35 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 36.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 6, line 7, leave out (“1960”) and insert (“1993"). The noble Viscount said: The purpose behind Amendments Nos. 36 and 176 is simply to bring up to date the references to the Charities Act 1960 and the Charities Act 1992 in Clauses 5 and 83. Following the successful passage of the Charities Act on to the statute book last year, it was decided that there should be a consolidation of the provisions of the 1992 Act and the 1960 Act. It is therefore necessary to change the references to the Charities Act 1960 and the Charities Act 1992 by replacing them with references- to the Charities Act 1993. That is the effect of the amendments, and I hope that the Committee will accept them. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Can the noble Viscount kindly tell the Committee whether the Charities Act 1993 has received Royal Assent?
Viscount Goschen: It has not. On Question. amendment agreed to. [Amendments Nos. 37 to 39 not moved.] Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Housing and Urban Development Bill
1256
Clause 6 [Meaning of "long lease"]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should mention that if Amendment No. 39A is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 40.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 39A:
Page 7, line 41, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: I do not intend to delay the Committee for any length of time. Indeed, my ambitions in this matter are very limited because I cannot see the Government accepting the amendment. My desires lead me only this far to understand what subsection (6) means. I have told my noble friend that I am in a state of some doubt as to the exact meaning. The phrasing does not seem particularly elegant and I should like to be quite sure that my understanding of the words is correct. Perhaps my noble friend would oblige and tell me. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The Committee will know that I always seek to be understanding of my noble friend Lord Peyton. I am in a position to explain to him what it is that we intend in subsection (6). The subsection deals with the situation where there are two leases; for example, on separate halves of a flat. I understand that this can happen if, for instance, there have been conversion works so that two smaller flats have been converted into one large flat. Under the subsection these are to be treated as one lease on one flat. I can tell my noble friend that this follows a similar provision in the 1967 Act. Furthermore, this is just an operational provision so that in those circumstances the tenant can enjoy the rights under the Bill.
Lord Williams of Elvel: In the light of what he has said, can the Minister explain what will happen if the two leases on two separate flats which are then joined and become one flat for the purposes of the Bill run for different periods? If the two flats are then divided, are there then two leases? If, on the other hand, the flats are not divided and are occupied separately but held together, are there two flats or one flat for the purposes of the Bill?
Lord Strathclyde: In answering my noble friend Lord Peyton, I was seeking to explain what we are trying to do under subsection (6). The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has raised some questions but I am not sure that I can give him satisfaction on them. Perhaps he will allow me to look at the matter further. I may explain it to him by means of a letter.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My natural kindliness causes me to refrain from asking my noble friend if there are any cases, of which he can give details, where there have been particular problems which have been brought to the notice of the Government. As I said, perhaps the kindest thing I can do is to say that I am content with my noble friend's explanation and to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 40 not moved.] Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Leases at a low rent]:
644 LD75/20 Job 3-8
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.