THE RIGHT TO COLLECTIVE ENFRANCHISEMENT (Hansard, 14 June 1993)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry)
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Madam Speaker
With this we shall consider the following Lords amendments: Nos. 5, 8, 9, 13, 20, 32, 36, 45, 46, 51, 53, 56 to 58, 60, 68, 75, 77, 78, 84, 94, 105, 106, 108 to 110, 116, 125, 129 to 131, 133, 134, 136, 140 to 142, 144, 148 to 152, 154 to 156, 160 to 162, 216, 219, 221, 223, 229, 231, 236 to 239, 243, 255, 256, 258, 260, 261, 263, 264,271, 273 and 277

§ Mr. Baldry
This is a large group of amendments. They are almost entirely drafting and technical amendments, which are required to clarify some provisions, correct cross-references and amend minor defects. They were made in response to comments received and after further consideration of the Bill elsewhere. They ensure that the Bill's provisions work more effectively. I do not intend to take the time of the House in discussing any of them individually. However, I shall mention amendment No. 216, which changes the name of the Bill to "Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill".
The original short title of the Bill was drafted to be as short as possible so that it could be easily referred to in other Acts and subordinate legislation and by anyone seeking to use its provisions. However, it was argued in another place that the title was not helpful as it did not refer to the leasehold provisions that take up the whole of part I and are of great interest to many people. The new title reflects the structure of the Bill and makes it clear that it covers important reforms to the leasehold system.

§ Mr. John Battle (Leeds, West)
We are faintly surprised that the Government decided to change the title of the Bill. The Bill's provisions for housing have been residualised and it will not create a single new home, so perhaps it is not surprising that the Government have decided to change the emphasis to leasehold enfranchisement.
I do not wish to open a debate on the issue, but I must say that the Bill creates expectations for the 750,000 leaseholders but, as I am sure will be revealed in our debate 648 and as it has been revealed in another place and in Committee, it will short-change many leaseholders who think that they will be enfranchised but who will discover that they will not receive franchise entitlement.
The low rent test still appears in all the amendments, despite all the attempts in the House and in the other place to change it. That will disqualify many of those 750,000 people from leasehold enfranchisement. The Bill claims to give rights to leaseholders—even its title has now been changed to stress leasehold enfranchisement—but, in practice, many people will be disappointed. In practice, and on the face of the Bill, the rights that were promised in the consultation paper will be dashed on the rocks of expediency by the Government and people will not receive their entitlements.
The Labour party believes that restoring those rights is one way in which the Government can fulfil their original pledge. Only a few hours ago, the Prime Minister said that he would honour all the Conservative party's manifesto commitments, yet many of the rights promised in the original title of the Bill have been removed. In other words, the Bill will not do what the Government claimed. It will short-change many leaseholders, and a change of title will not cover up that.