HC Deb 27 June 1988 vol 136 cc79-83 7.15 pm
Mr. Battle

I beg to move amendment No. 257, in page 61, line 38, at end insert— `; and (c) shall be copied to all tenants occupying dwellings that are included in the application by the applicant or by the landlord at the applicant's expense.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 112, in page 61, line 38, at end insert— '(2)(a) An application under subsection (1) above shall not be made unless the applicant has obtained the necessary support of tenant(s) during the pre-selection process. (b) In paragraph (a) above the pre-selection process is that process to be supervised by the Housing Corporation in which potential applicants are introduced to tenants who may be interested in having a new landlord acquire their dwellings, the Secretary of State shall make regulations regarding the matters to which the Housing Corporation shall have regard in the supervision and implementation of the pre-selection process. Such regulations shall include—

  1. (i) details of procedures to prevent prospective applicants making approaches to tenants unless a change of landlord has been sought by tenants, whether directly or through the Housing Corporation;
  2. (ii) the criteria with which the Housing Corporation shall select prospective applicants whom it has approved to be introduced to tenants;
  3. (iii) the requirement that each tenant affected by a prospective application is informed of the prospective application in a language and form that can be readily understood;
  4. (iv) the categories of information which shall be given to tenants by the prospective applicants and the existing landlord;
  5. (v) details of arrangements to enable all tenants who would be affected by a change of landlord to take part in a ballot to express their preference regarding which prospective applicant, if any, they wish to see make an application under subsection (1) above.'.

No. 114, in page 61, line 38, at end insert— '(2) Within seven days of the receipt by the landlord of an application made in accordance with subsection (1) the landlord shall serve a notice, in accordance with such provisions as may be prescribed, on each qualifying tenant or tenant under a long tenancy who, on the date of the application, occupied a dwelling-house included in the application. (3) For the purpose of this section, joint tenants shall be deemed to be one tenant and if one joint tenant fails to notify the landlord of his agreement to the proposed acquisition, any notifications by another joint tenant shall be deemed to be void. (4) The applicant shall bear the landlord's reasonable costs of complying with this section.'.

No. 258, in clause 90, page 62, line 10, at end insert— 'a copy of such a notice is to be supplied to all tenants named within it; and'.

No. 157, in clause 91, page 63, line 4, leave out from `state' to end of line 6.

No. 259, in clause 91, page 63, line 6, at end insert— '(3A) A copy of any notice issued under subsections (1) and (2) above shall be supplied to all tenants occupying dwellings which are the subject of the application.'.

Mr. Battle

The starting point for the discussion on this group of amendments is that all tenants to which applications relate should be consulted and kept informed at all stages of the takeover of their houses. We ask the Minister, yet again, whether those tenants will be given all the information, at all stages, that is known to the Housing Corporation. The proposals are defective because of the lack of information that tenants can glean; they should have access even to such limited information.

The Bill provides that, if a dispute arises between the tenant, the local authority and the prospective landlord, the costs will be paid at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Tenants should not have to bear such costs, other than in exceptional circumstances. There should be a proper pre-selection process, supervised and implemented by the Housing Corporation, and such a provision should appear in the Bill. The prescribed process under which potential applicants can tout tenants should include details of the procedures to prevent them from approaching tenants unless they have actively sought a change of landlord.

The Minister earlier referred to the whole process as a beauty contest, which is a rather bad analogy—although it may have been the best that he could think of. I do not know how he could suggest that prospective landlords would treat it as a beauty contest. Most tenants want to prevent the Bill resulting in what could be called kerb crawling by prospective landlords, who will turn up on spec, knock on doors and tout for trade. We want the Minister to include some protection against that in the Bill.

In Committee on 25 February, the Minister agreed that a satisfactory pre-selection procedure should be developed. That has not happened yet. Surely the Housing Corporation should be given a statutory duty to set out the regulations governing the pre-selection process, which must include a prohibition on prospective new landlords making direct approaches to tenants.

The Government have claimed the slogan, "Power to the people"—so how can they justify a Bill that actively denies tenants any involvement in the decision-making process? The Bill takes no account of the local knowledge and experience of tenants or of non-qualifying tenants such as the elderly and those in sheltered housing and housing that has been specially built or adapted for the disabled. Every tenant in the community has the right to have a say in the future of the area in which they live.

Underlying the Bill is the Government's deep-seated attitude towards tenants. The Secretary of State used to be a Minister at the Foreign Office. He once remarked: Grenada is in the process of establishing the kind of society of which the British government disapproves, irrespective of whether the people of Grenada want it or not. The Secretary of State has now come home with that. Irrespective of whether tenants want it, sales will be enforced over their heads. In effect, the Government will be implementing what would be better described as the Housing (Sales and Marketing) Bill. Getting their hands on the property involves a difficulty because there are tenants in the way. The tenants thus become a problem, and winkling them out becomes the highest priority. Unless the Minister takes real cognisance of our amendment and incorporates it on the face of the Bill, the true aim of the Bill will become clear.

In a sense, the real aim was made clear by the Minister in December in House Builder magazine when he said: In some cases the developer might want to act as landlord; in others he will want to sell the houses to another individual or institution—perhaps a local company … or a financial institution looking for an investment opportunity". I believe that investment opportunities are at the heart of the Bill. It is about time that the Government put the tenants at the heart of the Bill. At present they are there as some kind of side effect—they have to be included because they are there, but the Bill has nothing to do with giving them extra rights as the Minister claims.

Mr. Waldegrave

The hon. Gentleman is right that the main dispute between us on this, and on other points in this part of the Bill, is how much should be put on the face of the Bill and how much included in the administrative procedures and regulations that we propose for the Housing Corporation. Obviously, we fully support the need to involve tenants in the decision whether the application should be made and to inform them at subsequent key stages—the point covered by amendment No. 257.

We have already agreed that it should be a condition of approval that applicants agree to participate in the pre-selection process. This was discussed in Committee with the help of the hon. Gentleman. It has now been developed and was described on the previous group of amendments. It is right that the Housing Corporation should ensure that there is genuine tenant support before a formal application is made. The disagreement arises over the amount of detail that should be written into the Bill. We believe that it should he for the Housing Corporation to decide how best to assess the level of tenant support in each case, and we cannot accept that an applicant should not approach any tenant on his own initiative.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that tenants should be sent information at key points in the process. The argument is about the best way to handle that. We believe that they should be informed at the time of application. They must also be told whether there are any changes affecting them, following determination of the package offered by the applicant, and they must be told when the applicant has decided whether to proceed to the consultation procedure. Undertakings to give that information will be a condition of approval. We believe that that is how we should proceed. We discussed the matter in Committee, but I have not changed my mind on that, although I do not disagree about the importance of the flow of information. That is essential if the whole process is to operate properly. Detailed arrangements for consultation will be set out in regulations under clause 95.

Amendment No. 157 is a little different. The Secretary of State needs power to prescribe provisions for the adjudication process to ensure a fair and orderly procedure. Provision for costs is also required to ensure justice if either party precipitates avoidable action. As the hon. Gentleman will remember, we argued in Committee that costs should normally fall on whichever side they arise.

On the very important aspects of information, in particular, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that, although he wants more to be specified in the Bill, we have moved as we promised in Committee. I repeat today the assurance that we are intent on achieving the same objectives as the hon. Gentleman, but by means of regulations.

Mr. Boateng

I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks about information and consultation and about the guidelines on good practice that we are to be shown at some later stage and which are to be implemented by the Housing Corporation and others responsible.

Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that, where appropriate, the information and the procedures for consultation will be published in languages understood by the tenants affected? In some parts of the country, many residents in affected accommodation would not have a sufficient grasp of the English language to appreciate in that language the complicated and technical matters likely to be the subject of consultation and information. What proposals are there to ensure that Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi and other languages will be used for the purposes of consultation and the provision of information to ensure that the process is genuine and achieves the purpose For which it should be intended?

Mr. Waldegrave

I will respond briefly, although I believe that the point is covered in later amendments. I am happy to give the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks. In areas where there are large numbers of people from different communities—I could name 20 or 30 different communities—it would perhaps be unfair to insist that every language be covered. It will, however, be clearly laid down for the Housing Corporation that the principal languages in the area must be involved. If it were subsequently discovered that there was, say, one Japanese person living in the area, it might be difficult to insist that all documentation should be in that language as well, but clearly the principal languages must be covered. The hon. Gentleman mentioned some of them. In my own constituency, Greek and Polish would be relevant. I certainly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.

Mr. Battle

The Minister has said that the details will be in regulations and not in the Bill, but perhaps he will tell us his view of amendment No. 114, which seeks to provide for one vote per tenant rather than one vote per tenancy. If that amendment is not covered in the regulations, the Bill could result in divided households. If the Minister is not prepared to specify that everyone in the area should have a say, the obligation on the applicant to gain the support of all tenants in the area will not be fulfilled, and the legislation will have a divisive effect.

Mr. Waldegrave

I do not seek to prolong the debate. We made it clear in Committee that there should be one vote per household. It would be impossible to manage the provisions if households were split. Each household must decide how to use its household vote.

Mr. Simon Hughes

I had not intended to intervene, but that is not what the Minister said in Committee. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and I specifically put it to him that joint tenants should each have a vote. The Minister undertook to consider the matter and accepted that it was a sensible suggestion.

The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) argued a slightly wider point, with which I also agree. There is a good case not only for joint tenants but for people with succession rights to be able to vote, as they are clearly affected parties. To my clear recollection, the Minister undertook to his hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne—a former Housing Minister—and to me that he would consider the idea of allowing every person whose name appears on the rent book to vote. There are very sensible reasons for that. One tenant might subsequently leave and the other remain, and the interests of both are likely to be affected. I hope that the Minister will deal with that.

Mr. Waldegrave

I well recollect being pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and saying that I would consider the matter, but it is quite impracticable to pursue the course suggested. I believe that this issue is covered by a later amendment, but I make it clear now that we have considered the matter very carefully and that the procedure suggested is impossible.

Mr. Hughes

I hear what the Minister says, but that will often be an impossible requirement. If two people rent a flat, and are separated and in the process of divorce, one might wish that flat to be in the private sector, for all sorts of reasons, and the other might wish it to be in the council sector. There is no possibility of reconciling that, but they have one vote. If the Minister is trying to argue for a credible voting system he should think again most carefully. It is another example of the theory of the Bill being rendered increasingly illogical the more we consider it.

Amendment negatived.

Forward to