| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Dudley Fishburn (Kensington): The story of leasehold reform is a strange one, and this set of amendments most perfectly typifies what is so strange about it. The push for leasehold reform has come from Conservative voters, home owners and a million people who have sunk a lot of money into their homes and found that their homes, under our leasehold system, are second-class homes.
Despite the charming words of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), the articulateness of the leasehold reform campaign has been provided by Conservative Members, who enabled the previous three Leasehold (Reform) Acts to be passed.
Mr. Raynsford:
The hon. Gentleman argues that the case for leasehold reform has been made by Conservative Members. Perhaps he will tell the House who voted for leaseholders' right to manage and to do away with the low-rent test, and why he voted with the Government and with all his Conservative colleagues against leaseholders' interests on those two issues?
5.30 pm
Mr. Fishburn: I did not mean to stir up this pot at this time. I divided the House on the low-rent test, and I voted with the hon. Member for Greenwich on the most recent Leasehold (Reform) Bill--which gets to the point that I should like to make. While leasehold reform is in the Conservative interest, and Conservative Members have articulated that interest, often the Government have been the slowest, most reluctant and most diluted in their approach to it.
The amendments are to be hugely welcomed, as are the concessions that have been gained. However, they should have been in an Act of two years ago. We were told then, of course, that it was completely impossible for leaseholders to have access to the right to manage, in the same way that we were told that the low-rent test was an essential part of leasehold law. Now, courtesy of the good work done by the Government, that low-rent test has been all but abolished, and leaseholders will have a right to go to a leasehold valuation tribunal to win the ability to manage. However, it is little, it is late, and it is not the last word on the subject.
What is certain is that the topics that we have been discussing as the Bill has passed through the House, and most particularly this set of amendments, will be revisited in the years ahead. That has nothing to do with the ambitions of the hon. Member for Greenwich--who, if ever he does come to the Dispatch Box, will probably come to it as an Agriculture Minister rather than as a Minister for anything to do with the Department of the
Environment--but it has everything to do with the slow, reluctant and rather muddled way in which we revise property law in this country.
My guess is that the amendments will return in another Housing Bill, that the Bill is by no means the last word and that, in 2010, leaseholders will not be going to a leasehold valuation tribunal, paying their £500 and winning the right to manage.
I am delighted that the concessions have been made, that a cap has been established and that Front Benchers have--although it is little and late--done the right thing. As one more step along the path of proper leasehold reform, the measures are much to be welcomed.
Mr. Clappison:
I think that hon. Members are familiar with the background of how some tenants have suffered at the hands of certain landlords. Certainly we believe that our package of reforms will be of real assistance to many tenants who have suffered in that manner. This reform--the establishment of the leasehold valuation tribunal--will be an important part of that package.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) raised the issue of unscrupulous landlords who would try to exploit the provisions in the same way in which they have exploited other provisions, causing fear and trepidation for tenants. I should tell him that the provision to which I referred in my opening remarks is perhaps one that the courts will want to consider, particularly in the context of landlords' behaviour. We have set out a provision that allows a tribunal to require the other party to reimburse the applicant for all or part of the fee if it seems appropriate in the circumstances. There is no doubt that tribunals will want to examine carefully the type of behaviour by landlords that he mentioned.
The hon. Member for Greenwich, and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), mentioned the order and the possibility of increasing the sum of £500. I respectfully draw their attention to the fact that that would require an affirmative resolution and to what I have already said about that matter--that the order will be dealt with in the normal way and that it will occasionally reflect changes in cost. It is sensible to have such a provision for change. It does not mean necessarily that change will be brought in tomorrow, but it is sensible to have such provision for it.
Various hon. Members have mentioned people on low incomes. The Bill contains provision for the tribunal to mitigate the fee if the applicant is on a low income. We have not yet decided how to implement that provision in detail, but we shall be consulting on it. I can tell the House that it is likely that we will passport the current support regime--such as income support--as a basis for the operation of that mitigation. The fee will be mitigated in full or in part if the applicant qualifies.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt) for his expression of support--which, in his case, comes after a very careful consideration of the provisions.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn). It is fair to say, on any view, that he has played a most distinguished and well-documented part in the history of leasehold reform.
I listened carefully to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby), who I know cares deeply about this subject. He put it admirably when he said that justice in such circumstances should come swiftly and cheaply. In response to his concern, I can tell him that the precise fee structure has not yet been worked out. We will, however, of course be guided by the type of considerations to which I have already adverted. He is as anxious as we are that we should have effective justice at an affordable price. We believe that these provisions will achieve that.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendment Nos. 100 and 101 agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 102, in page 53, line 36, leave out from ("securing") to end of line 39 and insert
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.--[Mr. Clappison.]
Question put:--
("that the amount of the fees charged is no more than would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, be chargeable for similar proceedings in the county court.")
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |