| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Peter Brooke (City of London and Westminster, South): I listened with pleasure to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) before we got down to the substance of the Lords amendments. I smiled, because I remembered how often the hon. Gentleman had congratulated the Government in Committee on the manner in which they had responded to arguments, and had said how much the Bill was being improved by our actions. I even remember the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) deriving enormous pleasure from the first concession made to her by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration.
I felt some sympathy with the hon. Member for Greenwich in regard to what we were having to cope with today, and thought that he put his point with a degree of charm. He spoke with pride, however, about the behaviour of members of his party and its Governments in connection with leasehold reform. I have represented my constituency since 1977. The leasehold reform legislation passed before then was passed under the auspices of Labour Governments, and the hon. Gentleman deludes himself if he thinks that those Governments did not leave problems behind, with which leaseholders had to wrestle following 1967 and 1974.
A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman launched an implicit attack on the principle of amendments made on Third Reading in the House of Lords. We fully understand that, were the country to be unwise enough to elect a Labour Government, the constitution would be turned upside down; but I personally consider amendments on Third Reading in the House of Lords to be one of the glories of the constitution. They enable us to make corrections to Bills at the last possible moment, although, on the ping-pong principle, they will return to this House thereafter. I remember that, back in the early days of the 1979 Administration, an amendment on Third Reading to another DOE Bill, which was of immense importance to my constituents, was agreed to. I would be very sorry if such a device disappeared.
We heard the familiar inveighing of the hon. Member for Greenwich against landowners and their relationships with my party. I referred to it as proto-marxist theory in Committee and I am perfectly happy to do so again. He sought to be disarming in Committee and to say that the Labour party's views had no wider implications for property law or contract law. All I can say is that we will listen to that in future.
I have sympathy for the hon. Member for Greenwich on one point: the process through which we have all necessarily been put as a result of the manner in which the Bill has proceeded. I would welcome a response from my hon. Friend the Minister on it. It relates simply to the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors' code, which was alluded to at an earlier stage as being what would inform the conduct of the leasehold valuation tribunal in considering applications for the right to manage.
My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the fact that there will be a surveyor on the tribunal who will be able to judge the appropriate law and conditions relating to the matters. When we discussed the matters before, the code was very much in draft form and was being discussed with interested parties. Some assurance was given that its final form would either be available before the Bill completed its passage through the House or fairly soon afterwards. I understand that, as a statutory instrument, it is likely to be available fairly soon afterwards.
I make not a complaint but a point, which is in line with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Greenwich. Leaseholders have been in touch with me to ask whether I have seen the code, think it is satisfactory, or agree that it is unsatisfactory. I inquired at the only place where one can inquire--the RICS. It properly says that, because the document is in draft form, it is being discussed with interested parties and is not available to Members of Parliament.
We therefore find ourselves in the slightly ironical position that, in order for the DOE to come to a conclusion on whether the code--and thus the statutory
instrument--should be recommended to Ministers, leaseholders are allowed access to it and may hold views on it, but Members of Parliament who represent those leaseholders have no idea what it contains. Although I do not blame the RICS for regarding the draft code as a privileged document that should not be available to us, it is an unsatisfactory element in the evolution of policy that we shall eventually be asked to vote on a document that we cannot amend, when there might have been a better way in which to conduct consultation at an earlier stage.
Mr. Clappison:
With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
This has been an interesting short debate. I emphasise to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) that we come to the problem from a common background. The concern among Conservative Members on behalf of leaseholders is no less than he expressed. We certainly recognise the problems that some leaseholders have experienced as a result of the behaviour of certain landlords. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby) has spoken eloquently on the subject. The package of reforms that we have introduced, including these amendments, targets the problems caused by bad landlords. That is as true of the provisions that we make for the right to manage when there has been bad practice by landlords as it is with the other provisions that we have introduced.
I do not want to go over the wider ground of the right to manage, but I take issue with the hon. Member for Greenwich on what he said about leaseholders. We believe that the amendments will be of real benefit to leaseholders who seek the right to manage as a result of bad practice by landlords. It is no use saying that leaseholders who do not have problems with their landlords will not want to take advantage of such provisions, or, indeed, of a general right to manage such as that postulated by the hon. Gentleman.
My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), who has played a most constructive role in Committee and speaks with great knowledge and authority on the subject, raised the important issue of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors code. I can tell him that the code is in the final stage of completion and it is hoped that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will approve it shortly. It has previously been the subject of consultation, and I understand that the RICS has consulted the DOE on it and on its timing.
I shall certainly take up the important point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South about privilege and access of Members of Parliament to the code. He spoke with great authority and clarity on the subject, as he did on the way in which the House must consider the amendments. He was absolutely right to emphasise the way in which we have approached the matter.
It is rather difficult to listen to debates and to try to respond to meritorious arguments and then be chastised for making changes in the light of such debates. We have taken such a course throughout the proceedings and think that it has borne fruit. The amendments will be an important benefit for tenants who seek the right to manage when they have suffered at the hands of bad landlords.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 106 to 113 agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 114, in page 57, line 35, leave out ("is sufficient to meet") and insert ("does not exceed")
Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.--[Mr. Brandreth.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |