§ Mr. SoleyI beg to move amendment 170, in page 65, line 10, at end insert 'subject to subsection (3) below'.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 175, in page 65, line 10, at end insert—
`For the purposes of this section, tenant(s) shall include——
- (i) sole tenants,
- (ii) all joint tenants,
- (iii) the spouse of any tenant as defined in (i) and (ii) if residing with the tenants,
97 - (iv) any other person residing with the tenant(s) who on the relevant date have a right to succeed to the tenancy in accordance with sections 87 and 89 of the Housing Act 1985'.
§
No. 171, in page 65, line 13, at end insert—
'(3) The applicant will cause to permit such consultation to be carried out by an independent person agreed by the landlord, or such independent persons as may be prescribed'.
§
No. 302, in page 65, line 13, at end insert—
'(3) The provisions governing the consultation shall include the appointment of an independent teller to supervise the conduct of the consultation.
(4) If the independent teller, appointed under the provisions of subsection (3) above, has reason to believe that any financial consideration or other improper material inducement has been or will be offered or made by the applicant to any qualifying tenant, to influence that tenant not to give notice under section 93(2) above, he shall be empowered to declare the consultation null and void.'.
§
No. 384, in clause 96, page 65, line 16, at end insert—
(1A) This subsection applies to any qualifying tenant whose tenancy commenced before the relevant date and who, before the end of the period mentioned in section 95 above, has given notice in such manner as may be prescribed of his wish to become a tenant of the applicant.'.
§
No. 173, in page 65, line 18, leave out from 'above' to end of line 21 and insert—
'where—
a secret ballot to be conducted by the Electoral Registration Officer for the area, or such other person who may be agreed by the applicant or landlord'.
§
No. 174, in page 65, line 18, leave out from 'above' to end of line 21 and insert—
'(a) where—
(b) unless it is accompanied by the written consent from all those households who wish to participate in the transfer, such consent to be in the form as shall be prescribed'.
§ No. 385, in page 65, line 18, leave out 'if' and insert 'unless'.
§ No. 386, in page 65, line 19, leave out '93(2)' and insert `96(1A)'.
§
No. 303, in page 65, line 21, at end insert—
', or if the independent teller appointed under the provisions of section 95(3) above has declared the consultation null and void.'.
§
No. 172, in page 65, line 21, at end insert—
'(3) A ballot under this section shall be conducted by the approval body referred to in section 87 above and shall be so conducted by it as to secure that—
(4) The method of voting in the ballot must be by the marking of a voting paper by the person voting. The voting paper must inform the person voting of the likely consequences of the acquisition and shall contain such other information as may be prescribed.
(5) As soon as is reasonably practicable after the holding of the ballot, the approval body shall take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure that—
(6) The applicant shall bear the approval body's reasonable costs and expenses in conducting the ballot and in complying with its obligations in subsection (5) above'.
§
No. 177, in page 65, line 34, at end insert—
`; and
§
We may also discuss new clause 43—Need for positive tenant's choice before change of Landlord ( Part IV)—
`(1) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that nothing in this Part of this Act shall mean that the landlord of a tenant shall change unless the tenant has notified the independent teller that he wishes to become a tenant of the applicant.
(2) For the purpose of this section, the independent teller shall he a person approved for that purpose by the Secretary of State.'.
§ Mr. SoleyI can understand the frustration of the House because some hon. Members felt that they had given more in Committee than they had received. Much of the frustration arises from the so-called voting system that we are about to discuss. That is the key area and it has been considerably debated in Committee. Fortunately, we seem to have been able to draw the matter to the attention of the media. It is by far the most iniquitous part of the Bill in terms of the misuse of the English language. The Government presented the matter as if it were about tenants' choice, but it is about "pick-a-tenant" because a landlord can choose which properties he wants to take over.
As some of my hon. Friends have said, this is not a voting system but one carried out by letters. Our amendments seek to make clear that a voting system is necessary. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and other hon. Members will be pleased to see from an examination of the full group of amendments that they cover a number of areas about which we have already spoken. Those areas have been causing some anxiety, not the least important being that concerning the right of a spouse to vote whether or not it is a joint tenancy, a sole tenancy, or involves the spouse of any tenant. The most important amendments in the group are amendments Nos. 172 and 174, and if necessary we shall push them to a vote. Those amendments would create a genuine voting system.
In an attempt to be clever, the Minister said that the leader of the Labour party approved the principles of the system contained in the Bill, but the Minister misread the report in The Guardian. My right hon. Friend's speech was a very good one. I know that, because I checked it. It reiterates what I have been saying since the Bill first appeared, that we have no objection to tenants being able to change their landlord. However, it must also apply in the private sector for non-resident landlords, and it must be done in a proper way, with a proper voting system. It must be done in a way that makes sure that proper rights are safeguarded and that the tenants have an absolute veto. That is crucial.
99 It is also necessary, as has been done successfully by Labour councils in Glasgow and Sheffield, that the change be made in co-operation with a good alternative landlord. The Minister will know that, where it has been done successfully by Labour local authorities, it has been carried out in conjunction with co-operatives and housing associations. We have no objection to that. We have every objection to the introduction by the Government of a system that basically allows a private developer approved by the Government to make a bid for property. Having made that bid, he can make the local authority offer all the information that he needs about the number of tenants, the cost of servicing the estate and a whole range of other matters. That will give the developer an idea of whether it is worth taking over the properties.
The so-called voting system angers council tenants more than any other part of the Bill. I do not blame them, because the dead are counted as having voted in favour of a transfer. If a person dies at the time a bid is made for an estate, he is counted as having voted in favour of a transfer. By any standards that is wicked, but it goes further than that, because all empty properties are also counted as yes votes. That is an incredible system. In order to stop a sale going through, there would have to be a majority against it. I shall give a simple example. If 50 per cent. of the people vote no, 25 per cent. vote in favour of a takeover and 25 per cent. do not vote at all, the takeover will go ahead. In an extreme example, where no one votes in favour of the takeover, it will go ahead if a majority does not vote against it.
§ Mr. Tony BanksThat could happen.
§ Mr. SoleyAs my hon. Friend says, that could happen. This system is a disgrace to democracy and its description is a gross misuse of the English language. I am all for the flexibility of the English language, but this cannot be called a voting system. How does the Minister justify it? He justifies it by an incredible statement. He says that it is quite all right because people who want to stay with the local authority can do so. But then we read in the newspapers that the rent will be set by the new landlord. That wipes the smile off the face of the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies).
The Minister says that a local authority can decide whether to subsidise a tenant and make up the difference. We know that umpteen service charges can be imposed on tenants by a new landlord. That has happened in Thamesmead. There can be service charges for the caretaker, for the maintenance of the estate and for landscaping. No fewer than 13 different surcharges can be levied. The Minister says that these matters will not worry the tenants, but they will, because it is their money that is being given away. The Government have their hands in the pockets of the tenants and are trying to get money out to give to some other organisation that has taken over those tenants.
This is a grossly unreasonable attempt to fool tenants, but it has gone badly wrong. That is one of the reasons—we shall come to it later—for the Government now looking with such interest at new clause 47. They have twigged that, even with this incredibly distorted voting system, the vast majority of council tenants will not be fooled and will vote against. In Peterborough, where a 100 massive 95 per cent. voted to stay with the local authority, the Government stepped in and said that, as with other new towns, they would try to find a way of transferring the properties without a vote and will have a vote in two years. That is the latest trick. The Government are desperate to get local authorities out of the provision of housing. The tenants do not want that, yet the Bill is supposed to be all about tenants' choice. If tenants vote to stay with a local authority, why should they not be allowed to do so? That is the issue.
In these amendments, particularly amendments Nos. 172 and 174, we are laying down what the voting procedures should be. There must be a proper ballot, with an approved body—such as the Electoral Reform Society —to oversee it. There must be proper checks on the way in which voting is carried out. The Government felt it necessary to impose the toughest of legislation on the trade unions, but all of a sudden, someone can have their home transferred over his head, and although he might object, nothing can be done about it and he simply has to pay the new rent set by the new landlord, plus all the service charges and the rest, or move out of the home. That is one of the most appalling proposals to be before the House, particularly because it is dressed up by misuse of the English language.
8.30 pm
The matter goes further. We want an answer from the Minister on this. Last Thursday, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey asked a question of the Prime Minister. She replied:
I thought that we had arranged that it was a majority of those voting—either for tenants' co-operatives or for a possible transfer to housing associations.There was an interruption, and the Prime Minister went on to say:In that case, may I have another look at it? I think in fact that we have arranged for a block to be transferred only with a majority of those voting and for those who do not wish to be transferred to remain under existing ownership."—[Official Report, 23 June 1988; Vol. 135, c. 1257.]That is not the case. The Prime Minister is wrong about the Bill as drafted. Therefore, will the Minister alter the Bill to fit what the Prime Minister thought was being done? Alternatively, has he told the Prime Minister that she was wrong last Thursday when she said that the decision was taken by a "majority of those voting"? He could change the Bill along the lines of our amendments and bring it into line with what the Prime Minister thought it was doing. If we are in favour of majority voting, which we think is the basic necessity, we ought to move in that direction.
§ Mr. SpearingMy hon. Friend is explaining the matter clearly, but is it not even more serious? Would it not be proper for the Prime Minister tomorrow to correct what she said if we are right, or for the Secretary of State, who is, after all, a member of the Cabinet and should have informed her, to say that he will incorporate that provision in the Bill? Should not one of them be here before we reach the vote to tell us what they are going to do?
§ Mr. SoleyI agree with my hon. Friend. I understand that the Prime Minister cannot be in the House tomorrow, but we intend to pursue this matter. We want to know whether the Minister will amend this, so that the decision is taken by a majority vote. In Committee, we had long debates about this extremely important matter. I 101 appreciate that we have major time problems today, but this is so important that we expect the Minister to tell us——
§ Mr. SpearingNo, the Secretary of State.
§ Mr. SoleyWell, we expect the Secretary of State to tell us—that the Prime Minister was right and he will change the Bill accordingly, or she is not right, and he will go back and tell the Prime Minister that she was wrong. We want an answer, and we want it now.
§ Mr. Simon HughesI remember both my question and the Prime Minister's answer well. I was anticipating that we might debate this part of the Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livesey) and I tabled three amendments, Nos. 384, 385 and 386 and new clause 42 as part of the debate. They simply say that there can be no transfer unless and until the tenants say that they want a transfer. That is simple, straightforward and democratic and the basis of the new clause is the declaratory nature of the new clause that the Government moved in part I. If tenants' choice means what it says, it surely follows that the principle declared in new clause 42 should be in the Bill and that no tenant should become a tenant of a different landlord unless the tenant has chosen to so.
I remind the Minister that in this respect the English and Welsh Bill differs from the Scottish Bill. The principle of majority voting and support is enshrined in the Scottish Bill. In Committee, the Minister gave some reasons for the differences in legislation, saying that it depended on the legal systems and legal terminology. It is true that that difference exists, but that is not a reason why the principle should be different and people in England and Wales have a system that says that there need not be a majority in favour before there is a transfer of property. Why, if Scottish council tenants can have a fair voting system, cannot English and Welsh council tenants? Presumably, the reason is that the Government are not in favour of tenants' choice, but they are in favour of removing council property from council ownership.
Last Thursday I mentioned to the Prime Minister a letter written on her headed notepaper on 9 June last year, two days before the last general election, in reply to Mr. St. John of Thessaly road, the Patmore estate, London SW8. It says:
Dear Mr. St. John, Mrs. Thatcher has asked me to thank you for your recent letter on council tenancies and to reply.The substantive point is:You really do mistake our intentions".It goes on to state clearly:if the majority agree their tenancies can be transferred to approved institutions, housing associations and building societies those council tenants who wish to remain with the council will be able to do so, so there is no need for the anxieties you mention.It was signed, "Reginald Eyre". He was a former hon. Member and a Minister. When I asked the Prime Minister last Thursday to explain, she twice said this, among other telling points:I thought that we had arranged that it was a majority of those voting—either for tenants' co-operatives or for a possible transfer to housing associations.Then, when it was made clear that that was not what was in the Bill, she said:In that case, may I have another look at it? I think in fact that we have arranged for a block to be transferred"—102 I shall come back to the block issue, which is another one which has been misunderstood—only with a majority of those voting and for those who do. not wish to be transferred to remain under existing ownership"—[Official Report, 23 June 1988; Vol. 135, c. 1257.]That was not surprising, as the Prime Minister was confirming what she had written to a voter just before the last election. I wrote to her last week and the letter was delivered to Downing street on Friday. I have not yet had a reply, unless one has arrived in my office since the debate began. Quite clearly, as of Thursday, the Prime Minister believed that there was a majority voting system. I believe that she, the Secretary of State and the Minister cannot justify going back on an express commitment made before the general election that it required a majority to be in favour before property was transferred.In Committee, the Minister revealed that the Government's primary purpose was the ideological anti-public sector, pro-private sector purpose of de-municipalising housing. The Minister said:
at this stage the primary purpose is to introduce greater plurality into the near monopoly holders, the municipal sector."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 25 February 1988; c. 1166.]Perhaps he said that by accident, but I do not think that that was the case. That was evidence of the Government's real motivation.Giving tenants what the Government call a choice is only a mechanism for achieving what they want. It is not their primary purpose. If it were their primary purpose to give tenants choice, we would still have the Bill, but with very different clauses. Above all, there would be majority voting in favour in a secret ballot before council property was transferred. As the Government's primary purpose is not tenants' choice but taking property from the council sector, they have to introduce a mechanism which distorts that voting system.
The housing under-secretary of the ADC, Mr. Paul Johnson, has argued adamantly against the voting system in the Bill. On 22 April, he wrote in the Municipal Journal:
However, on the crucial issue of a majority vote the Government has not given way. The voting system thus reflects the primary purpose of the Government of `introducing greater plurality into the near monopoly holders, the municipal sector' … Yet is it really defensible to transfer the apathetic, the absent and the absent-minded without their agreement? Leaving aside the perhaps extreme case of a transfer proceeding when nobody voted in favour, not untypically an estate might vote: for transfer 20 per cent.; against 40 per cent.; non-voters 40 per cent.; and the application would proceed.Mr. Johnson goes on to point out that the Department of the Environment's own booklet "New Directions for Council Housing", sent to council chief executives in March, states:Building societies will not wish to become involved in the ownership or management of council estates unless arrangements for transfer from the council have the agreement of the great majority of tenants.That is what the Government said, yet they are introducing a system which allows transfer without such agreement.The Government say that, where transfers go through, there will have to be a majority of significantly more than half the tenants in favour. If that is the Government's position, there is no reason why they should not accept the amendments, which are positive amendments for a voting system. If the Government believe that that should be a precondition, then let them write it into the Bill. If the Government maintain their position, they are out of touch 103 with local authority associations of all colours and with the majority of financial backers whom they are seeking to encourage, let alone the tenants.
Like other hon. Members, I have had meetings with tenants and there has been unanimous incredulity at and opposition to the Government's concept of a voting system. Quality Street and the TSB-run Property Investment Company Ltd. have made it clear that they consider that the great majority of tenants should be in favour of transfer and that the voting system should provide for that.
What is the Government's defence case for the voting system? The Minister of State said:
We have thought carefully about it … If people have looked at all the structures—not just at what is written in the Bill but at the pre-selection procedures that we have described —and are still not interested enough to register a vote, the most likely and common-sense conclusion is that they do not much care."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, February 1988; c 1145.]Did the Minister not realise that that reveals exactly the Government's ideology and their anti-democratic position? If people do not have a view, the Government will make their decision for them. The Government will say, "We know what they want and we shall make sure that, whatever they think and say, our will prevails." Those people have not chosen to be transferred. They have not assented to that, but the Government will make sure that it happens. That is not a case of tenants' choice, but of the Government imposing their will. That is an example of the Government as the worst inertia salesman or saleswoman in the land.It is a principle of law in this country, and has been for a long time, that silence means no. "Halsbury's Laws of England"—there is no greater basis for authority—states in paragraph 250 of volume 9:
The offeror cannot bind the offeree against the latter's will by expressly stipulating that if the offeree does nothing he will be bound to a contract.Does the Minister not agree that the voting system in the Bill breaks the principle of English law that silence means no? It does not mean, "Yes, I am happy for the property to be transferred and for you to do the job for me," but, as the Government well know, "Thank you but I have not given my assent."The voting system abuses electoral law, the concept of electoral system and the concept of voting. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said, under the Government's system the dead are voting. The Government are having to get the dead on their side to force the legislation through. The more people die, the happier the Government will be. If they cannot get the living to vote for them, my goodness they will get the dead. If someone alive on the relevant date dies before the end of the consultation period, the Government will have the word yes plastered all over the coffin as it comes downstairs.
§ Mr. George HowarthOr goes upstairs.
§ Mr. HughesAs the hon. Gentleman says, we hope that some of those people will be going upstairs, too. Downstairs is only a temporary measure. Perhaps we should leave the theology to another debate.
104 The same applies to people who are resident in a flat or a house on the relevant date and subsequently leave before the end of the consultation period. They will count as yes votes, too. Even if one moves and therefore has no right to a say, one will nevetheless be voting yes. That does not even include people who are in hospital or in the forces and those who cannot be contacted.
The ADC said:
On this, the Government have surely already lost the argument.On this, the Government have not only lost the argument, they have not even persuaded the Prime Minister. Last Thursday, at the Dispatch Box, she said that the Bill required a majority of people to be in favour for a transfer to go through. Last week, we had a debate on the confusion in the Government's housing and planning policies. When the Prime Minister says twice that the Bill does one thing and the Department of the Environment writes in something else, there is something pretty rotten at the heart of Government.Last June, the Prime Minister made a clear commitment that majority means majority. We need to go back to that commitment and have a clear undertaking that the Government will amend the legislation now. I warn them that their credibility and reputation may well hinge, at the end of the day, on this issue and this group of amendments. The Government have denied democracy to every council tenant in Britain by this Bill. They now have a last opportunity in the House to do something about it.
§ Mr. WaldegraveFirst, I shall dispose of one or two of the more exciting headlines. Empty flats are not counted as yes votes. Voting goes by a majority of tenants eligible to vote and, obviously, there are no such tenants in properties vacant on the relevant day. In addition, the dead do not count. Clause 96(2) allows the applicant to proceed if the number of tenants to whom clause 95 applies who have voted no does not exceed 50 per cent. If one is dead, one is no longer a tenant to whom clause 95 applies.
We dealt with the situation in Scotland several times in Committee. The reason that Scotland does not have a voting system, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey accepted, even if other hon. Members did not, is that there is a completely different legal system in Scotland and freehold flats are routinely bought and sold. Under the Scottish system, therefore, everyone can have a separate landlord.
As the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) rightly said, our case rests on the fact that no tenant need be transferred from the landlord of his or her choice and each tenant can stay a council tenant. The hon. Gentleman then fell back on the argument that the underlying landlord, the council, would then have to pay the higher rents, if it wishes to leave the sub-tenant on the same rent as before. That is perfectly true, and there is nothing particularly unusual about it. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) told us about the case, which is not so rare, of councils having property which is leased with an underlying leasehold from somewhere else. It is then up to the council to decide how much rent to charge and how much to subsidise a particular property, assuming that the rents are higher, although that may not be so.
§ Mr. Tony BanksDoes the Minister accept that, under the provisions of clause 91, it is theoretically possible that 105 someone who has died after the relevant date will be considered to have voted for the proposition in the consideration of those who voted against and those who voted for? What other example can he quote of a system where no one needs to vote in favour, and unless 51 per cent. have voted against the vote is considered to be in favour of change?
§ Mr. WaldegraveThese provisions are directly precedented because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, they stem from existing legislation. He will know that they have been carried from the 1986 Act.
§ Mr. BoatengThe question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was a simple one. Will the dead have a right to vote—yes or no?
§ Mr. WaldegraveThe hon. Gentleman knows that what I have said is true. No one who is dead can be a qualifying tenant. That must be a truism.
Since we discussed these matters in Committee, we have developed a policy that is aimed at meeting some of the legitimate, as opposed to the absurd, concerns of the Opposition parties. It was argued that we must invent a proper pre-selection procedure. I am sure that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is right when he says that no financier, whether a building society or a hank, will want to lend money to a housing association or any other body when there is not tenant support for it. He claimed to quote me saying that on a previous occasion, and that is likely to be right.
We have introduced a system whereby the Housing Corporation will be able to judge an applicant and refuse permission for the application to go forward if there is not a reasonable amount of support among the tenants. That is perhaps unnecessary, however, for the very reason that the hon. Gentleman has advanced. As he has said, it is exceedingly unlikely that an approved landlord—a housing association or any other body—will wish to pursue the application if there is not considerable support for it.
§ Mr. Simon HughesWill the Minister give way?
§ Mr. WaldegraveThe hon. Gentleman made a long speech and I have been pressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House to assist in bringing the debate to a conclusion.
§ Mr. HughesI am alive.
§ Mr. WaldegraveI am glad to hear that. Sometimes there has been doubt about that.
§ Mr. HughesBe rude to the dead but not to the living.
If the logic is that the requirement will be a majority before the investment is made and the system operates, why is that provision not written into the Bill? That is the position in Scotland and in the Prime Minister's mind that is what is in the Bill, but the Minister and his colleagues refuse to insert that provision.
§ Mr. WaldegraveI have explained that in Scotland it is possible for every tenant to go in exactly the direction he wants. In Scotland it is not necessary to have an underlying landlord who owns the property. I find myself making no apology to the hon. Gentleman.
I recognise that these matters have been debated at public meetings which have been attended by many tenants. Some of these meetings have been addressed not 106 altogether truthfully by some who have represented Opposition parties. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I was referring to no Member of this place.
§ Mr. Keith Bradley (Manchester, Withington)Will the Minister give way?
§ Mr. WaldegraveI can refer hon. Members to a number of leaflets which have been circulated by Opposition parties, the contents of which are far from the truth.
If there are tenants who continue to have little interest in the procedures that we have introduced—that is after they have been visited and pursued by the independent teller, who has a duty laid upon him to ensure that he brings home the right to vote to everyone who is present —I have nothing to apologise for in saying that they do not care one way or the other. I have in mind those who say, "I do not care and I am not going to vote," after all the procedures have been completed.
The finest hour of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was his ambushing of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Question Time. That has given him a great deal of pleasure. That is not relevant, however, to the debate. The hon. Gentleman was an assiduous attender of the Standing Committee and he knows exactly what the proposals have been all the way through.
§ Mr. Simon HughesThe I'rime Minister does not.
§ Mr. WaldegraveThat may be because my right hon. Friend, sadly for us, was not a member of the Committee. Undoubtedly we would have proceeded a great deal faster if she had been. I doubt whether many Opposition Members would have dared to open their mouths if my right hon. Friend has been a member of the Committee. The truth of the matter was set out clearly in the discussion paper, the White Paper and the Bill. It was discussed ad nauseam in Committee, and that can be said too of many of the arguments that have been advanced by Opposition Members tonight.
We have made all the changes which were argued for sensibly by my hon. Friends in Committee. We have done so to ensure that there is competition among applicants, a proper procedure to ensure that applicants are approved and of a high standard and that the sort of canvassing by private landlords that was described in Committee cannot take place. Despite all the misleading propaganda that has been disseminated by those representing Opposition parties, a recent survey conducted by the National Consumer Council showed that up to 25 per cent. of council tenants are interested now—this is before they have seen the truth of the matter—in transferring from the council to a housing association. We shall bring forward a system that will meet their needs. As I said on Second Reading and have said since, I suspect that, once the Bull takes its place of the statute book and has been shown to work, Opposition Members will find that they will come to support it.
§ Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin)We have heard the Minister explain the Government's alleged commitment to tenant democracy. I shall briefly place on record the Government's performance in my constituency. There is not much point looking into the crystal ball when we can read the history book, and I shall describe how a ballot was conducted in my constituency to determine the future of Telford development corporation houses. The Government promised repeatedly that tenants would be 107 consulted on the future ownership of their homes. I received two letters from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), which contained repeated promises and assertions about consulting tenants. I am talking about 8,000 tenants in my constituency who are very anxious about who their landlord should be.
I wrote to the Minister immediately after the general election seeking her assurance that there would be proper consultation. On 20 August 1987, she replied:
My Department has now written to the Development Corporation asking them to set in hand arrangements for the consultation of their tenants at the earliest practicable time. It is for the Corporation to decide, in discussion with the housing associations and the council, exactly when the consultation can take place, but I hope that it can be during October".I assumed that that meant that consultation would take place within a month. However, from the Government's point of view, something disastrous then happened. A ballot took place in Peterborough in November about the future of new town houses in Peterborough. The result was that 93 per cent. favoured transfer to the local authority, thinking that a democratically elected local authority was the right organisation to take control of their houses.9 pm
I wrote again to the Minister, who replied on 29 February this year. As a mass of convolution and incompetence, her reply would take some beating. She said:
I am still considering issues such as the timing of consultation and the financial arrangements for transfer in the light of the exercise carried out in Peterborough last November.Tories do not like democracy when it produces results that they do not want. The next part of her letter takes some beating for incompetence. She said:With regard to the community centres, shops … there are a number of possible alternatives. For example, regardless of the outcome of any tenant consultation which is undertaken, it could be decided to negotiate the transfer of these assets to the local authority. Similarly, transfer to the housing associations is another possibility. Alternatively, one could wait until the consultation has taken place and then try and negotiate the transfer of these assets to whatever alternative landlord has gained the majority of votes on each estate.If that is not making policy on the back of a fag packet, I do not know what is. This Bill has the same characteristics.Surprise, surprise, at the end of April this year—this is the end of the Government's commitment to tenant consultation in my constituency—the Government postponed indefinitely any ballot for tenants in my constituency. The Government's record of tenant consultation in The Wrekin is one of consulting tenants or anyone else only when they know that they will get the answer they want. As soon as they know that democracy means people giving the thumbs down to the Government or the Telford development corporation, they postpone any democratic consultation. The Bill, including its commitment to tenants' consultation, is not worth the paper that it is written on, as my constituency experience shows.
§ Mr. Tony BanksI realise that it probably helps to be dead to vote Conservative and it certainly helps to be politically dead to be a Minister at the Dispatch Box having to argue this nonsense.
Let me assist the Minister in better understanding his Bill. The Prime Minister does not understand it and it appears to us that neither does the Minister of State. Clause 95(2) states:
This section applies to any qualifying tenant, or tenant under a long tenancy, who on the relevant date occupied a dwelling-house proposed to be included in the acquisition.The definition of "relevant date" is given in clause 86(4) which states:'the relevant date' … means the date on which is made the application under section 89 below".We know from what was said in Committee that that process can last as long as six months. It must follow that, if anyone has died since the relevant date, up to six months before, when the votes are being counted and those who have not voted against are said to have voted in favour, clearly the dead will have had a vote.
§ Mr. WaldegraveThe hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. Clauses 95 and 96 provide that they must be tenants. It follows that they must be alive. If the hon. Gentleman wants to consider an odd situation, it is possible that the teller may not have been aware of a very recent death. If he is aware of a death, the electorate is smaller in number as a result of the death.
§ Mr. BanksWho is going to inform the teller? That brings us to another good question. What about the independent telling of the ballot or vote? Although we understand that the Secretary of State can appoint someone, nothing is written into the Bill about that.
It is clear to Opposition Members that under the present system, translating it back into broader political terms, the Prime Minister could say to the electorate that no one needs to vote Conservative at the next general election, but unless 51 per cent. of the electorate vote against, they will get a Conservative Government. Frankly, I challenge the Minister to say where on earth he could find any particular reference point to that perversion of democracy by anyone's definition. It makes Pol Pot look like a progressive. It makes Vlad the Impaler look like someone who is only interested in democracy. It makes the Prime Minister look like the totalitarian and Stalinist that she is and it makes the Minister look like the fool that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made him.
§ Mr. WaldegraveI do not wish to interfere with the hon. Member's peroration, but the ballot is not like a general election because he cannot select to have a Labour Government for himself, whereas tenants can choose to remain with the council.
§ Mr. McCartneyThe Minister's sham of so-called tenant choice has been exposed. It is rather like Robin Hood and Maid Marian, although she has returned to her castle in Marsham street.
§ Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax)She is coming to Halifax on Friday.
§ Mr. McCartneyI shall not ask why.
In Committee, the Minister was asked specific questions about tenants' entitlement to vote. I may use the practical example of my own daughter Karen and her husband, who are tenants on the Millers lane estate in 109 Wigan. Under the Government's proposals, only one of them will have a vote. Who will determine which of two joint tenants is to vote? Who will determine whether it is the husband or the wife who votes? What will happen if one joint tenant is working away from the property? Who will determine who actually casts the vote?
The situation grows even more incredible when one considers abstentions. A person living on an estate, registered as a legal tenant, and paying a legal rent, will under the Government's proposals be denied the right to a say in the determination of the tenancy and to affect the outcome of the ballot. Yet the Minister still hangs on to the concept of tenant choice and of the right of all tenants to share in determining their landlord.
It is incredible that a Minister should stand at the Dispatch Box and tell the House that after eight years the Prime Minister does not know what she is talking about in respect of housing, for that is precisely what he said. The Minister said that the Prime Minister did not know what she was talking about on Thursday. He offered the plausible excuse that it was because she did not serve on the Standing Committee. It must be the only Committee on which she has not served, when one considers the control that she has over the Cabinet and Cabinet Committees.
Whether the Prime Minister was talking through the back or the front of her head, she made a commitment—both last Thursday and prior to the general election—that every tenant would have a right to vote in respect of transferred tenancies. The Minister is attempting to wriggle over the whole concept of a rigged ballot. It is really all about rigging the ballot, to ensure that local authorities will cede their rights to housing action trusts where they exist, and that local councils and their tenants will lose their right to control the housing stock.
An even more ludicrous situation applies in respect of the tenants of flats. Someone who has clearly voted not to change his landlord can remain as a council sub-tenant even if, because the ballot was rigged, there is a change of landlord. However, the local authority faces a further disincentive because it must accept the rent levels and other impositions of the new landlord.
The local authority will have to make two further decisions. It will have to decide whether to impose new rent levels and new conditions on a tenant who, in a so-called secret ballot, voted against them. Alternatively, the authority will have to do so in respect of other of its tenants, who will have to pick up the tab, in the common pool of rent levels. That will represent a subsidy for the tenant in question, in fulfilling the requirements of the sub-tenancy. That is a negation of democracy. Under no circumstances could anybody—even Pincochet in Chile —argue that such a proposal represented a proper plebiscite of the rights, conditions and views of local residents in determining policy.
The Minister is still wrigglng about the position in respect of voters who subsequently die—the zombie amendment, with the dead being taken to vote. What would happen if the votes were close? A whole estate could be transferred just because someone had gone to another place, to a happy home, either upstairs or downstairs. The Minister should not complain, although he has done so. We all know that it is a rigged system.
What about a tenant's right to challenge the ballot procedures if a majority of the tenants who participated in the ballot voted against changing the landlord? What 110 about the tenant's right to challenge a ballot in which the minority have imposed on the majority a change of landlord and the change of circumstances on an estate? That will create a minefield throughout the country because tenants will rightly seek legal redress because of rigged ballots and because their right to remain a local authority tenant will be denied and taken from them.
Finally, the Under-Secretary of State has still not answered a question which was asked in Committee and again tonight. In joint tenancies, why do not both tenants have the right to vote? Will the male or the female in a relationship be given the right to vote and thus to determine? Who will have the right to vote if, for example, two males or two females are living together, and who will determine which tenant will have the vote?
The Minister should answer these points because tenants will have to take legal redress to challenge their right to a vote which is being denied them. They are practical, sensible questions, irrespective of whether one will vote for or against the Government's policies. The Minister has an obligation to tell the House precisely what procedures will be used to determine whether a tenant will be disallowed or allowed to participate in the ballot.
§ Mr. SoleyWith permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because we are totally disatisfied with the Minister's response, which is a sham, and everyone knows that it is a sham, we shall seek to divide the House on this group of amendments.
§ Mr. SpearingOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the important debate it was quite clear that when using the word "ambush" the Minister, whose name is on the Bill, has admitted that the Prime Minister, whose name is also on the Bill, in this House, in the hearing of many and on the record of the Official Report gave me a wrong interpretation of this most important clause—although, of course, it might have been thought to be correct.
Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the Prime Minister to come to the House to apologise and to put the matter right? Is there any way in which the House can command the attendance of the right hon. Lady, since her name is on the Bill, or will it be left entirely to her volition to come here to correct the grievious error which many people will have heard because the House is now broadcast?
§ Mr. Simon HughesFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What is important is that the Prime Minister said in her answer to me on Thursday that she wanted to have another look at the matter. She said that specifically and it is recorded in the Official Report. She did not accept that what was in the Bill was what I asserted and she clearly believed that the Bill——
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. These are not matters for me. I do not have responsibility for them. However, they will no doubt be taken into account by the House when it reaches its conclusion and will, no doubt, have been heard by those who may have some responsibility for reporting such matters to the Prime Minister. They are not matters for me. Perhaps we can now get on.
§ Mr. HughesFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The matter is simply this. Given that the 111 Prime Minister has said that she will look at the matter, is it not difficult, if not impossible, for the House properly to vote on the matter before we have had her response?
Mr. Deputy SpeakerThese are matters for the House to take into account when reaching its conclusion. They are not matters for the Chair. I have no authority to instruct the House on these matters.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 234.
113| Division No. 381] | [9.14 pm |
| AYES | |
| Abbott, Ms Diane | Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John |
| Adams, Allen (Paisley N) | Gordon, Mildred |
| Allen, Graham | Gould, Bryan |
| Alton, David | Graham, Thomas |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Grant, Bernie (Tottenharn) |
| Armstrong, Hilary | Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) |
| Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) |
| Ashton, Joe | Grocott, Bruce |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Harman, Ms Harriet |
| Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) | Healey, Rt Hon Denis |
| Battle, John | Heffer, Eric S. |
| Beckett, Margaret | Henderson, Doug |
| Bell, Stuart | Hinchliffe, David |
| Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) | Hogg, N. (Cnauld & Kilsyth) |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Hood, Jimmy |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Howarth, George (Knowsley N) |
| Blair, Tony | Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath) |
| Blunkett, David | Howells, Geraint |
| Boateng, Paul | Hughes, John (Coventry NE) |
| Boyes, Roland | Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) |
| Bradley, Keith | Hughes, Simon (Southwark) |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Janner, Greville |
| Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E) | Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn) |
| Buchan, Norman | Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald |
| Caborn, Richard | Kirkwood, Archy |
| Callaghan, Jim | Leadbitter, Ted |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Leighton, Ron |
| Cartwright, John | Lestor, Joan (Eccles) |
| Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | Lewis, Terry |
| Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) | Livsey, Richard |
| Clay, Bob | Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) |
| Clelland, David | Lofthouse, Geoffrey |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | McAllion, John |
| Cohen, Harry | McAvoy, Thomas |
| Cook, Frank (Stockton N) | McCartney, Ian |
| Corbett, Robin | Macdonald, Calum A. |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | McFall, John |
| Cousins, Jim | McKelvey, William |
| Crowther, Stan | McLeish, Henry |
| Cryer, Bob | McNamara, Kevin |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Madden, Max |
| Dalyell, Tam | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) |
| Dixon, Don | Martlew, Eric |
| Dobson, Frank | Maxton, John |
| Doran, Frank | Meacher, Michael |
| Dunnachie, Jimmy | Meale, Alan |
| Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth | Michael, Alun |
| Eastham, Ken | Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) |
| Evans, John (St Helens N) | Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute) |
| Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) | Millan, Rt Hon Bruce |
| Fearn, Ronald | Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby) |
| Field, Frank (Birkenhead) | Moonie, Dr Lewis |
| Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n) | Morgan, Rhodri |
| Fisher, Mark | Morley, Elliott |
| Flannery, Martin | Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) |
| Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
| Foster, Derek | Mowlam, Marjorie |
| Foulkes, George | Mullin, Chris |
| Fyfe, Maria | Murphy, Paul |
| Garrett, John (Norwich South) | Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon |
| George, Bruce | O'Brien, William |
| O'Neill, Martin | Soley, Clive |
| Orme, Rt Hon Stanley | Spearing, Nigel |
| Patchett, Terry | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Pendry, Tom | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Pike, Peter L. | Stott, Roger |
| Powell, Ray (Ogmore) | Straw, Jack |
| Prescott, John | Turner, Dennis |
| Primarolo, Dawn | Wall, Pat |
| Quin, Ms Joyce | Wallace, James |
| Radice, Giles | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Randall, Stuart | Wareing, Robert N. |
| Reid, Dr John | Welsh, Andrew (Angus E) |
| Richardson, Jo | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Robertson, George | Williams, Rt Hon Alan |
| Robinson, Geoffrey | Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then) |
| Rogers, Allan | Wilson, Brian |
| Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) | Winnick, David |
| Rowlands, Ted | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Sedgemore, Brian | Worthington, Tony |
| Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert | Wray, Jimmy |
| Shore, Rt Hon Peter | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Short, Clare | |
| Skinner, Dennis | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) | Mr. Frank Haynes and Mrs. Llin Golding. |
| Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury) |
| NOES | |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Currie, Mrs Edwina |
| Alexander, Richard | Curry, David |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) |
| Allason, Rupert | Davis, David (Boothferry) |
| Amess, David | Day, Stephen |
| Arbuthnot, James | Devlin, Tim |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Dickens, Geoffrey |
| Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) | Dicks, Terry |
| Ashby, David | Dorrell, Stephen |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | Dover, Den |
| Baldry, Tony | Durant, Tony |
| Batiste, Spencer | Emery, Sir Peter |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd) |
| Bendall, Vivian | Evennett, David |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Fallon, Michael |
| Benyon, W. | Farr, Sir John |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Favell, Tony |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) |
| Body, Sir Richard | Fookes, Miss Janet |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Forman, Nigel |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) |
| Boswell, Tim | Forth, Eric |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Franks, Cecil |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Freeman, Roger |
| Bowis, John | Gardiner, George |
| Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes | Garel-Jones, Tristan |
| Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard | Gill, Christopher |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Goodhart, Sir Philip |
| Brazier, Julian | Goodlad, Alastair |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) | Gow, Ian |
| Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) | Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW) |
| Buck, Sir Antony | Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) |
| Budgen, Nicholas | Greenway, John (Ryedale) |
| Burns, Simon | Gregory, Conal |
| Burt, Alistair | Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E') |
| Butcher, John | Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) |
| Butler, Chris | Grist, Ian |
| Butterfill, John | Ground, Patrick |
| Carlisle, John, (Luton N) | Grylls, Michael |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom) |
| Carttiss, Michael | Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) |
| Chope, Christopher | Hampson, Dr Keith |
| Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n) | Hanley, Jeremy |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Hannam, John |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr') |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn) |
| Colvin, Michael | Harris, David |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) | Haselhurst, Alan |
| Cope, Rt Hon John | Hawkins, Christopher |
| Couchman, James | Hayes, Jerry |
| Cran, James | Hayward, Robert |
| Critchley, Julian | Heathcoat-Amory, David |
| Heddle, John | Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas |
| Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE) | Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) |
| Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE) | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. | Rost, Peter |
| Hind, Kenneth | Rumbold, Mrs Angela |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Ryder, Richard |
| Holt, Richard | Sackville, Hon Tom |
| Hordern, Sir Peter | Sainsbury, Hon Tim |
| Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford) | Scott, Nicholas |
| Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| Hunt, David (Wirral W) | Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) |
| Hunter, Andrew | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') |
| Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas | Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) |
| Irvine, Michael | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Irving, Charles | Shersby, Michael |
| Jack, Michael | Sims, Roger |
| Janman, Tim | Skeet, Sir Trevor |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Jones, Robert B (Herts W) | Soames, Hon Nicholas |
| Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Speller, Tony |
| Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine | Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W) |
| Key, Robert | Steen, Anthony |
| King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) | Stern, Michael |
| Knowles, Michael | Stevens, Lewis |
| Latham, Michael | Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N) |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Stokes, Sir John |
| Lester, Jim (Broxtowe) | Stradling Thomas, Sir John |
| Lightbown, David | Summerson, Hugo |
| Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant) | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| McCrindle, Robert | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Mans, Keith | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman |
| Meyer, Sir Anthony | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Miscampbell, Norman | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) | Thorne, Neil |
| Moate, Roger | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Montgomery, Sir Fergus | Thurnham, Peter |
| Morris, M (N'hampton S) | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Morrison, Sir Charles | Trippier, David |
| Neale, Gerrard | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Nelson, Anthony | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
| Neubert, Michael | Waddington, Rt Hon David |
| Newton, Rt Hon Tony | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Walden, George |
| Nicholson, David (Taunton) | Walker, Bill (T'side North) |
| Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley | Waller, Gary |
| Oppenheim, Phillip | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Page, Richard | Watts, John |
| Paice, James | Wells, Bowen |
| Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil | Wheeler, John |
| Patnick, Irvine | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Patten, Chris (Bath) | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Pawsey, James | Wilkinson, John |
| Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth | Wilshire, David |
| Porter, Barry (Wirral S) | Winterton, Mrs Ann |
| Porter, David (Waveney) | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Portillo, Michael | Wolfson, Mark |
| Price, Sir David | Wood, Timothy |
| Raftan, Keith | Woodcock, Mike |
| Raison, Rt Hon Timothy | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Redwood, John | |
| Renton, Tim | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Rhodes James, Robert | Mr. Peter Lloyd and Mr. David Maclean. |
| Riddick, Graham |
§ Question accordingly negatived.