---

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the Home Secretary will read what the hon. Gentleman had to say in tomorrow's Hansard.

11 Mar 2002 : Column 638

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 3)

3.34 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Michael Wills): I beg to move,

That the Orders of 8th January (Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords] (Programme)) and 31st January (Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)) shall be supplemented as follows—


Consideration


The proceedings on consideration shall be taken on each of the allotted days as shown in the first column of the following Table and shall be taken in the order so shown, and each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.

Table

Proceedings	Time for conclusion of proceedings
First allotted day New Clauses relating to Part 1, amendments relating to Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 and 4, Schedule 2, Clauses 5 to 34, Schedule 3, Clauses 35 to 58, Schedule 4, Clauses 59 to 68, Schedule 5, Clauses 69 and 70, new Schedules relating to Part 1.	7 p.m.
Remaining new Clauses (other than Government new Clauses 9, 10 and 11 and other new Clauses relating to forfeiture of leases).	10 p.m.
Second allotted day Amendments relating to Clauses 71 and 72, Schedule 6, Clauses 73 to 102, Schedule 7, Clauses 103 to 123, Schedule 8, Clauses 124 to 149, Schedule 9, Clauses 150 to 155, Schedule 10, Clause 156, Schedule 11, Clauses 157 to 162, Government new Clauses 9, 10 and 11 and other new Clauses relating to forfeiture of leases, amendments relating to Clauses 163 to 168, Schedule 12, Clauses 169 and 170, Schedule 13, Clauses 171 to 174, Schedule 14, Clauses 175 to 177, remaining new Schedules and remaining proceedings on consideration.	9 p.m. We believe that this motion will allow appropriate time to consider each part of this important Bill. The second programme motion amended the original motion at the request of the Opposition by allowing a second day's consideration on Report. This motion has also been discussed with the Opposition—I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) for his co-operation—and it simply sets some timings for the two days of consideration. Hon. Members will see that the lion's share of the ample time available will be devoted to considering part 2, which relates to leasehold reform, on which most interest has been focused hitherto. To achieve that, hon. Members will see that the usual order of consideration has been changed slightly to allow full consideration of part 1 before moving on to part 2, and consideration of part 2 will begin no later than 7 pm today and continue on the second allotted day, which will be Wednesday next. The usual order has also been changed to allow new clauses relating to forfeiture to be taken out of order on the second 11 Mar 2002 : Column 639 allotted day to allow as full a discussion as possible. I hope that the House will feel that that is a satisfactory use of the allotted time. 3.35 pm Mr. William Cash (Stone): I hear what the Minister has to say, and agree with most of it. The fact is that there has been a very full discussion of the Bill in the other place. It has undergone about five separate procedural stages, so many of these matters have been discussed exhaustively. However, a number of important matters were discussed at length in Committee in this House, and every member of that Committee concluded that we had had a good Committee stage on this fairly esoteric subject. Labour Back Benchers made some extremely coherent arguments, as did Opposition Members, and some of my hon. Friends made some notable speeches. As a result, we eventually managed to create a climate in which the Government were prepared to consider making a number of important amendments and, in certain respects, to break new ground. Those amendments may not go as far as we should like, as we shall no doubt find as we proceed on Report. Some important changes are proposed in relation to forfeiture, which we shall discuss on Wednesday. That issue has been embedded in the law of property since well before 1925—in fact, from the middle ages onwards. We may not agree with every aspect of what is proposed, but, by the same token, real progress is being made, so I am glad to be able to say that we do not want to delay matters on Report by dividing the House on the programme motion. In my view, two days will be sufficient to deal with these matters, but I hope that there will be vigorous debate because we are not content with all the Government's proposals. Indeed, we have tabled our own amendments, which we intend to pursue vigorously, especially on unanimity with regard to commonhold and on forfeiture. The Opposition believe that the programme motion should be agreed to without Division. 3.39 pm Mr. Adrian Sanders (Torbay): It is logical to consider the Bill on two days and to have a break between them, but I hope that there will be flexibility if it looks as though we might go over a time barrier on one or two issues. The reason, ably set out by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), is that there are some contentious issues. We have a contribution to make on forfeiture and are particularly interested in marriage value. Although I do not expect that our amendments and new clauses will take an inordinate amount of time to debate, I hope that there will be time to put them to bed. 3.40 pm Mr. Bill Wiggin (Leominster): Given the prevailing climate, in which statements are sprung upon us, may I urge the Minister to persuade his colleagues not to make statements before the Bill's proceedings on Wednesday? Question put and agreed to. 11 Mar 2002 : Column 640 Orders of the Day Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords] [1st Allotted Day] As amended in the Committee, considered. New Clause 17 Judgement creditor of commonhold association '(1) A judgement creditor of a commonhold association may apply to the court for an order enabling him to enforce payment of all or part of his debt against a unit-holder. (2) In considering whether to make such an order the court shall— (a) not order a unit-holder to pay a greater part of the debt than the amount he would be expected to have contributed to it by payments under section 37 or 38, and (b) give due credit for the payments which the unit-holder has made under those sections.'.—[Mr. Cash.] Brought up, and read the First time. 3.41 pm Mr. William Cash (Stone): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. We have tabled the new clause on judgment creditors of commonhold associations because, in discussion with the Law Society, we came to the conclusion that there is inadequate provision for dealing with questions of liability for the viability of the commonhold system. The problem that arises relates particularly to the form of the commonhold association memorandum and articles of association. The Bill provides that there must, understandably, be a commonhold association that will own and manage the common parts of the commonhold development. It will be a private company limited by guarantee, with members consisting exclusively of all the unit-holders in the development. The issue concerns the nature of the company that is being created and the extent to which it is the appropriate structure for the commonhold association. We concluded that a private company limited by guarantee would be appropriate, but there is still the problem of what the liability would be in relation to such a commonhold association. We believe that strict limitation of liability is not appropriate for commonhold associations—indeed, it is likely to harm the viability of the entire commonhold system. There is a real problem here. Contractors are likely to be cautious about dealing with commonhold associations if the limited liability may make it impossible to collect sums owing. That is important, because the extent to which repair and maintenance will be properly catered for is part and parcel of the commonhold association's duties and functions. Recovery of work costs and related matters lie at the heart of the system and whether it will work. If contractors are not prepared to go along with the system because they are concerned about the strictly limited liability currently scheduled for commonhold associations, the physical state of the building in question could be brought into question. Indeed, such strict liability could even lead to physical neglect of buildings. For example, if contractors were unhappy with the liability for 11 Mar 2002 : Column 641 costs and other responsibilities in respect of the commonhold association, long-term lift maintenance contracts might be vitiated by the fact that no one was prepared to enter into them. That would be a serious problem, and we urge the Government, even at this late hour, to consider it seriously. 3.45 pm Home owners with freehold houses are not protected by limited liability, yet they expect to meet the cost of repairs. It seems appropriate that primary liability should rest with the commonhold association, which would make contracts. Secondly, if one unit-holder defaulted—if he were bankrupt, for example—it should be possible to reallocate his share of service charges among the remaining unit-holders. Thirdly, on final default by the association, it should be possible for individual unit-holders to be held accountable for their respective shares of the debt. Our proposals are contained in new clause 17. The Law Society supports the proposal that, in the case of final default by the association, judgment creditors should be offered the chance to obtain a court order against individual unit-holders. That would limit cases to those in which a court had adjudicated that a debt was due and allow the court flexibility to take account of the circumstances that affect each unit-holder—in other words, it may consider what they have already paid.