| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Clause 40
Lords amendment: No. 39, in page 24, line 10, leave out ("charitable trust") and insert
("registered charity (other than a company registered under the Companies Act 1985)")
Mr. Curry: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 42 to 46, 48, 49, 51, 54, 56, 59 and 65.
Mr. Curry: These are purely drafting amendments, which I commend to the House.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 40 to 51 agreed to.
Mr. Curry:
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 53, 55, 60, 70, 72 and 73.
Mr. Curry:
We had a considerable debate in Committee about what would happen in the event of a new social landlord becoming bankrupt or getting into financial difficulty. We provided that the Housing Corporation would be able to step in for a cooling-off period to protect the interests of all the parties--the tenants as much as the lenders. A small problem, rather than a significant one, could arise that could be sorted out shortly after the introduction of the so-called cooling off period.
The amendments allow the Housing Corporation to suspend a moratorium when the problem that provoked it has been solved, and it no longer needs to make a proposal. The Housing Corporation must consult the lender before calling it off, but this is a common-sense amendment, which I commend to the House.
Mr. Raynsford:
I shall discuss Lords amendments Nos. 60, 70 and 73. We greatly welcome Lords amendment No. 60, which gives effect to a point that we pressed in Committee. It will ensure that members of the committee of a housing association are not required by the duties imposed by the Bill to act in a way contrary to their fiduciary or other duties towards the proper running and management of their association.
Lords amendment No. 70 is equally welcome. It specifies that the manager appointed by the Housing Corporation in such cases
Amendment No. 73 involves the deletion of subsection 49(3), which simply states:
The threat of legal action could cut across or interfere with a manager's ability to exercise his powers, which could be damaging. I would welcome some explanation from the Minister of why the amendment appears to delete that proposed immunity.
Mr. Curry:
With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I must draw amendment No. 55 to the hon. Gentleman's attention. That requires:
The reference to "so far as practicable" in amendment No. 70 is intended to be directed towards taking the action, rather than giving a loophole to enable people not to take it. So the amendment has to be taken at its face value. We would not have proposed it, had we intended it merely to be platonic in its effect. It is intended to make managers have the firm intention of consulting, unless there is a clear reason why that cannot be done.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 53 to 81 agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison):
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 83 to 91.
Mr. Clappison:
The purpose of this group of amendments is to improve the working of local authority registration schemes for houses in multiple occupation. They deal principally with the content of schemes, publicity, and appeals against local authority decisions on applications for registration.
Mr. Raynsford:
We welcome the amendments so far as they go. There is no question but that more effective powers are needed to deal with the problems of houses in multiple occupation. It is well known that multi-occupied houses contain not merely the worst conditions of any category of housing, but also the greatest risks to life from both fire and carbon monoxide poisoning. There is widespread agreement that action is long overdue to ensure that the worst conditions are tackled more effectively. We differ from the Government on the best way to do so.
There is an overwhelming case for a national mandatory licensing scheme to cover all areas and all multi-occupied houses, concentrating in the first instance on those in which there is the greatest risk on a proper risk assessment basis. The Government have proposed a more limited registration scheme instead, which will be discretionary, and so will not apply if a local authority chooses not to operate the scheme in its area, and will apply only to a more limited category of multi-occupied houses.
We have serious reservations about the likely effectiveness and scope of the Government's scheme. Nevertheless, a scheme is better than nothing, even if it is a limited scheme, so we welcome the amendments made by the other place, which give effect to some of the measures that we advocated in Committee.
In particular, we welcome amendment No. 88, which inserts as a ground for refusal of registration reference to the person managing or having control of the property not being a fit and proper person.
We also welcome the arrangements under clause 91 for keeping copies of the registration scheme and making them available to people on request on reasonable terms. Those are important provisions to ensure that people who are not fit and proper persons can be denied registration, and that people involved--I think in particular of the residents living in multi-occupied houses, who have a particular interest in the matter--can seek information from the local authority about how the scheme is framed and how it operates.
I put it to the Minister that, if there was a national mandatory scheme, life would be much easier, because there would not be the likelihood of variations from area to area in the way in which the scheme operated. The tenant would be able to contact the Department of the Environment, which could issue a national advice leaflet providing information applicable in all areas. That is something which we shall wait for the next Government to introduce, but in the meantime we welcome the steps that have been taken to improve the registration arrangements.
Mrs. Maddock:
I and my hon. Friends welcome the amendments. Like the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), I am disappointed that there will not be a mandatory scheme. I particularly welcome the fact that it will be easier for councils which have a registration scheme to get works done. That has always been a problem in the past. We discussed the matter at length in Committee, and I hope that what the Government propose will work.
In common with many people outside the House, we would like a mandatory scheme. The local authorities asked for a mandatory scheme. Despite the improvements in the amendments, the scheme will not be mandatory, and that is the real weakness of this part of the Bill. However, the amendments are an improvement on the position that we were left with in Committee, and I welcome them.
Lords amendment: No. 52, in page 25, line 35, leave out subsection (1) and insert--
("(1) The moratorium in consequence of the taking of any step as mentioned in section 41--
(a) begins when the step is taken, and
(b) ends at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which notice of its having been taken was given to the Corporation under that section,
subject to the following provisions.")
"shall, so far as practicable, consult the landlord's tenants about any exercise of his powers which is likely to affect them and inform them about any such exercise of his powers."
22 Jul 1996 : Column 40
The Minister will have anticipated my question. Might not the words "so far as practicable" provide an opportunity for some managers to disregard the obligation, which I believe Parliament wishes them to honour, to ensure that tenants are properly consulted?
"Except as provided by this section, the actions of a manager appointed under section 46 shall not be questioned by any legal proceedings whatever."
The removal of that subsection raises a question whether the manager might be frustrated in his actions if he were threatened with legal action by one of the parties--possibly an unsecured creditor, unhappy with the approach being taken by the manager, who will be predominantly interested in the point of view of the secured creditors and the lenders in particular.
"So far as practicable no proposals shall be made"
that would leave
"unsecured creditors"
worse off than they would otherwise have been. Amendment No. 60 makes it clear that the duty of members, directors and trustees to co-operate with the implementation of the proposal does not require them to act in a manner contrary to their fiduciary obligations.
Lords amendment: No. 82, in page 36, line 51, at end insert
("and to renew the registration as and when required by the scheme.")
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |