RIGHT CONFERRED BY PART IV (Hansard, 27 June 1988)

§ Mr. Morgan
I beg to move amendment No. 100, in page 59, line 35, leave out 'buildings each of which comprises or contains one or more'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 147, in page 59, line 37, leave out from 'tenants,' to end of line 39.

§ Mr. Morgan
Through the device of the previous amendments, we have come to part IV of the Bill, on which I shall detain the House briefly. After all, it is the key to the way in which the Government intend to rig the ballot on the change-of-landlord, pick-a-landlord or pick-a-tenant scheme, or whatever one chooses to call it.
As far as we can tell, the purpose of the Government amendments to part IV is to exclude certain properties so that they can become more certain of obtaining a positive vote. That is why the amendments are reprehensible. However, they are not quite as reprehensible as the provisions by which those who have passed on may still be counted as being in favour of the Government. The Minister is in serious danger of entering "The Guinness Book of Records" as the first necrophiliac to become a Minister. I am speaking psephologically.

§ Mr. Waldegrave
It may help the House if I say that I believe that the hon. Gentleman is speaking to amendment No. 100, which is not a Government amendment.

§ Mr. Morgan
The Minister is right. Our amendments attempt to ameliorate the position so that we may have the power to exclude some of the buildings with which the Government are attempting to rig the ballot system. The Government are attempting to ensure that as few people as possible will be able to vote and that as many occupants as possible will be recorded as being in favour of a change of landlord.
We are attempting to incorporate our four minor amendments into the Bill. They do little to remedy the fundamental inequalities of the Bill as drafted, but they attempt to put some equality and elements of democracy back into this part of the Bill, so that people will have a chance to record their vote knowing that other people's vote will not be given greater power and that other people's votes, if not recorded, will not count double so as to push the pick-a-landord scheme through when that is not what the majority of tenants want.
One reason why the Secretary of State for Wales has come with a late rush on the outside in favour of the disposal of the municipal sector through further massive discounting down to £1 a time is that the Government realise that the pick-a-landlord scheme is unpopular among council tenants and that it will not get off the ground. The Government hope that by sowing confusion in everybody's mind they might have a chance of pushing some of the schemes through.

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
This part of the Bill sets out a right for private landlords. housing associations, building societies and other companies to acquire council estates. The Minister and the Government 51 generally have referred to this part of the Bill as the "tenants' choice". That is not how the tenants see it. Those of us who have held meetings, which must include some Conservative Members, will realise that in the long run.
We have described this as "pick a tenant" or, in certain circumstances, "trick a tenant". The tenant cannot choose the council, and that restricts a significant area of choice for which we know most council tenants would opt. It does not matter how good or effective the council is as a manager. The council is the one body that cannot acquire dwelling houses under this part of the Bill.
As a result of amendments in Committee, the other category who cannot exercise the right to buy an estate under this part of the Bill is anyone who appears to be under the control of the council. In other words, this is not a tenants' choice. It is a manifestation of the Government's vindictive hostility towards local authorities and their determination to destroy them no matter whether the tenants suffer. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) seems to be finding this vaguely amusing. If he were to talk to council tenants up and down the country, he would find out that that is not how they see it. I hope that that will be noted to the cost of the Conservative party at the next election.
From the pathetic "Tenants' Choice" document issued on 8 June, which purports to be the landlords' charter, for which we have been waiting for so long, it is clear that tenants will suffer a great deal. This is an invidious part of a vicious Bill, and I support the amendments.

§ Mr. Waldegrave
I have seldom had to answer a debate in which the Opposition spokesman began by attacking the amendments on the grounds that they were Government amendments and then found out that they were Opposition amendments. I stand by the early part of his speech, which was admirably put.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is a little out of date. Long ago, on Second Reading, I said that I had no doubt that in due course the Opposition would come round to some of the ideas in the Bill, just as they came round to the right to buy. It has happened more quickly than we predicted. The leader of the Labour party has already made some helpful interventions saying that the principles underlying this—with some changes that he would no doubt want to make——

§ Mr. Tony Banks
Wait until the Minister reads my right hon. Friend's next speech.

§ Mr. Waldegrave
I will look forward to his next speech. It may well be different. That is part of the delight involved in reading the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition. All human life is there, as it was in the old News of the World.
Clause 86 sets out this part of the Bill. It has been debated extensively in the House and in Committee. The core of the commitment is a tenant's home, whether a flat or house. Clause 86(1)(a) applies the right under part IV to freehold tenanted dwelling houses. Amendment No. 100 would narrow that provision to apply only to houses. That would be an unfair and acceptable retreat from the basic commitment in our manifesto.
The way in which we have set out the tenants' choice procedure is sensible. We will debate some aspects of it 52 later. I have no doubt that, once the procedures are fully set up, they will be welcomed by people who are dissatisfied with their existing council landlords.
It is sensible for a right relating to a house or flat to relate equally to the land that goes with the buildings, whether it is land or buildings with or without tenants. That was generally accepted in Committee. There is nothing unusual involved. We are talking about separate garages let with flats and open-plan gardens surrounding houses or flats in the unsatisfactory Radburn-style layouts. As we have put it in clause 86(1)(b), we are talking about land reasonably required for occupation with the homes defined in 86(1)(a).
Amendment Nos. 147 and 148, and to a lesser but still substantial extent amendment No. 101, would strike out the clause's provisions and leave a nonsense. I should have little difficulty in persuading Opposition Members not to press the amendment to a Division. I know that we have argued about other matters, but I do not think that the amendments would lead to anything that the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) or the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) would want to support.

§ Mr. George Howarth
I beg to move amendment No.105, in page 60, line 7, leave out 'or will be so obliged at a date specified in such an order'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 104, in page 60, line 8, at end insert— 'a notice of seeking possession has been served in accordance with section 83 of the Housing Act 1985, on any of the grounds specified in Schedule 2 to that Act; or'.

§ Mr. Howarth
The amendments are an attempt to clarify clause 86(3), which says: A secure tenant is a qualifying tenant for the purposes of this Part unless"— and then lists the exceptions.
The amendments try to add further to the understanding of what constitutes a secure tenant, to protect the interests of a legitimate tenant who might need his position clarifying. Our concern is that an arbitrary view might be taken of at what point the level of arrears would affect a tenant's rights under schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985. The amendments also try to clarify the legal position when an order to give up possession is made.
These are genuine amendments that are trying not to make a great point of principle but to amend the wording of the Bill to make it more understandable to those who might need to have it defined.

§ Mr. Waldegrave
These are serious amendments. Amendment No. 105 is designed to avoid an unnecessary restriction. It would allow rights to consultation under clause 95—and the ability to transfer under tenants' choice—to anyone with a possession order against them, providing it did not have immediate effect. I think that the amendment is concerned with those who have suspended possession orders against them.
The Government share the views that have been expressed by the hon. Member for Knowsley North (Mr. 53 Howarth) on amendment No. 105. Those who have suspended possession orders against them would include many people who would normally pay off their arrears. I am advised that the amendment is unnecessary because, although suspended orders may contain a date, it is not a date on which, according to the legal interpretation that I have been given, the tenant will be obliged to give up possession. On the contrary, it is often the date when he will become free from the threat of possession if he has paid off the arrears and if the other conditions attached to the suspended order are met.
The words that the amendment seeks to delete achieve the effect that the hon. Gentleman is seeking. I am glad to be able to reassure the hon. Gentleman about that, and I hope that I have made the point perfectly clear to those outside.
Amendments Nos. 104 and 103 go in a completely different direction and I should not want to accept them. They would prevent a tenant from qualifying where a landlord had begun formal proceedings for possession, even when no court order had been made. Amendment No. 103 is stricter still and would rule out tenants in more than two weeks' rent arrears—which on this scale might he technical only—on the relevant date. I am strongly against those amendments.
I assure the hon. Member for Knowsley, North that, according to the legal advice that I have been given, the important point in amendment No. 105 is met by the present wording of the Bill.

§ Mr. Howarth
I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the position. There is widespread concern that arrears and the way in which they are being treated is likely to cause serious problems.
The Minister conceded that many people get into arrears for legitimate reasons—often because of difficulties with processing housing benefit. Many people will have notional arrears until the housing benefit process sorts itself out, and they might fall foul of this part of the Bill. We are not satisfied that the clause will protect the interests of people who, for a variety of reasons—many of which are legitimate—find themselves in rent arrears.
I thank the Minister for clarifying amendment No. 105, but I am less than happy with his wholehearted refusal to take on board the points made about the other two amendments.