§ Mr. ClappisonI beg to move amendment No. 94, in page 56, line 37, leave out '4' and insert '5'.
In Committee, we promised to reconsider the level of fine for failing to offer tenants the right of first refusal. On reflection, we agreed that it should be raised to level 5, which is the highest point on the standard scale.
§ 8 pm
§ Mr. RaynsfordI will not detain the House, but again I would not wish this opportunity to pass without the Government acknowledging that it was the Opposition who raised the issue in Committee. We welcome the increase but remain sceptical about whether it is an adequate penalty for the offence. The circumstances that led to this involved the failure of some very large landowners to comply with their obligations to offer the right of first refusal to their leaseholders. For them, a fine of £2,500 or even £5,000 is a relatively trivial sum. 981 We proposed a more effective alternative sanction: the withdrawal of the right to demand service charges and ground rent while they were in breach of their obligations.
Nevertheless, we are pleased that the Government have recognised that the penalty should be increased, although we notice that they propose only that some of the largest and wealthiest landowners in the country should be liable to a fine of exactly the same amount as the humblest homeless person pays, who fails to give accurate information in making a claim for housing under parts VI and VII. There is an extraordinary incongruity about those levels of penalty. I leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions about where the Government's priorities lie.
Amendment agreed to.