CHARGES UNDER ESTATE MANAGEMENT SCHEMES (Hansard, 11 March 2002)

HC Deb 11 March 2002 vol 381 cc688-99 688

§ `(1) This section applies where a scheme under—

(a) Section 19 of the 1967 Act (estate management schemes in connection with enfranchisement under that Act),
(b) Chapter 4 of Part 1 of the 1993 Act (estate management schemes in connection with enfranchisement under the 1967 Act or Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the 1993 Act), or
(c) Section 94(6) of the 1993 Act (corresponding schemes in relation to areas occupied under leases from Crown), includes provision imposing on persons occupying or interested in property an obligation to make payments ("estate charges").

§ (2) A variable estate charge is payable only to the extent that the amount of the charge is reasonable; and "variable estate charge" means an estate charge which is neither—

(a) Specified in the scheme, nor
(b) calculated in accordance with a formula specified in the scheme.

§ (3) Any person on whom an obligation to pay an estate charge is imposed by the scheme may apply to a leasehold valuation tribunal for an order varying the scheme in such manner as is specified in the application on the grounds that—

(a) any estate charge specified in the scheme is unreasonable, or
(b) any formula specified in the scheme in accordance with which any estate charge is calculated is unreasonable.

§ (4) If the grounds on which the application was made are established to the satisfaction of the tribunal, it may make an order varying the scheme in such manner as is specified in the order.

§ (5) The variation specified in the order may be—

(a) the variation specified in the application, or
(b) Such other variation as the tribunal thinks fit.

§ (6) An application may be made to a leasehold valuation tribunal for a determination whether an estate charge is payable by a person and, if it is, as to—

(a) the person by whom it is payable,
(b) the person to whom it is payable,
(c) the amount which is payable,
(d) the date at or by which it is payable, and
(e) the manner in which it is payable.

§ (7) Subsection (6) applies whether or not any payment has been made.

§ (8) The jurisdiction conferred on a leasehold valuation tribunal in respect of any matter by virtue of subsection (6) is in addition to any jurisdiction of a court in respect of the matter.

§ (9) No application under subsection (6) may be made in respect of a matter which—

(a) has been agreed or admitted by the person concerned,
(b) has been, or is to be, referred to arbitration pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement to which that person is a party,
(c) has been the subject of determination by a court, or
(d) has been the subject of determination by an arbitral tribunal pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement.

§ (10) But the person is not to be taken to have agreed or admitted any matter by reason only of having made any payment.

689

§ (11) An agreement (other than a post-dispute arbitration agreement) is void in so far as it purports to provide for a determination—

(a) in a particular manner, or
(b) on particular evidence, of any question which may be the subject matter of an application under subsection (6).

§ (12) In this section— post-dispute arbitration agreement", in relation to any matter, means an arbitration agreement made after a dispute about the matter has arisen, and arbitration agreement" and "arbitral tribunal" have the same meanings as in Part 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (c. 23).'.—[Ms Keeble.]

§ Brought up, and read the First time.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 4—Enfranchised properties located within 'scheme area ' — `.—(1) This Chapter shall from the commencement of this Act apply to a dwelling within the meaning of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, as amended, and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, as amended, which—

(a) has been enfranchised;

(b) is situated within an area ("scheme area") in respect of which a scheme of management has been approved and is in force pursuant to section 19 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 or Chapter IV of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

(2) The right to manage provisions of this Chapter shall come into operation two months after a notice has been served by, or on behalf of not less than one half of the owners of enfranchised properties within the scheme area, and the form of notice shall be prescribed by regulations and shall be deemed to have been served from the seventh day after the notice has been sent by first class recorded delivery post addressed to the landlord or his agent at his last known address or left at such premises. (3) On demand, the landlord shall provide an enfranchised owner intending to join with others to serve a notice of right to manage with the names and addresses of all enfranchised owners within the scheme area.'.

§ Amendment No. 25, in clause 72, page 34, line 20, at end insert— ', or—

(d) they consist of individual houses and blocks of flats comprised in an estate management scheme.'.

Government amendment No. 35.

§ Ms Keeble
These new clauses and amendments deal with estate management schemes. I hope that they improve current arrangements.
I shall deal first with new clause 4 and amendment No. 25. The Government have considerable sympathy with the suggestion that leaseholders of an estate of leasehold properties managed as a single entity should be able to exercise the right to manage en bloc rather than on a property-by-property basis. However, several difficult technical problems would need to be addressed and overcome before we could introduce such a measure with confidence. There would be difficult questions as to how best to deal with situations in which a majority of 690 leaseholders in the estate as a whole favoured exercise of the right to manage but in which leaseholders of one or more individual blocks were opposed. Furthermore, many leasehold estates are a mixture of flats and houses, and problems would therefore arise from differences between the existing leasehold law on flats and on houses. It is also not uncommon for estates managed as a whole to include freehold as well as leasehold properties. Clearly, much work would have to be done before a regime could be devised for such estates, and that would have to await a future legislative opportunity.
I shall now deal with new clause 12 and Government amendment No. 35, which will go some way towards dealing with some of the issues that hon. Members have legitimately raised. In the other place, my noble Friend Lord Falconer gave an undertaking that the Government would introduce an amendment on estate management schemes if possible. I am pleased to inform the House that we are now in a position to do so.
Since estate management schemes were first permitted under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, Parliament has legislated to provide protection for tenants in respect of service charge payments. As hon. Members are aware, leaseholders who pay service charges have rights and protections against unreasonable charges. The Bill will improve and extend those rights and introduce comparable ones for administration charges made under a lease. There are not, however, any similar provisions in respect of charges made under estate management schemes. At present, therefore, anyone who enfranchises and is subject to a scheme will move from having protection against unreasonable charges under their lease to having no protection against unreasonable charges under the estate management scheme. That seems to be an anomaly.
Leaseholders who enfranchise in an area that is subject to an estate management scheme will find that, where they are obliged to contribute to the costs of services or maintenance charges provided or incurred by the landlord, they lose the right to challenge the level of charges for such services that they would have had as tenants under section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. We have introduced the new clause to remedy this situation. It will provide that charges under estate management schemes should be payable only to the extent that they are reasonable, and the leasehold valuation tribunal will have the power to determine the extent to which such charges are reasonable. 1 am sure that hon. Members will see the merit of the new clause, which will improve the position of those involved.
Amendment No. 35 is a technical amendment that is intended to ensure that it continues to be possible to request consent for the making of an application for the approval of an estate management scheme in connection with acquisitions under chapter I of part I of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. It has come to our attention that, once clause 116 comes into force, we will remove an existing right to make an application for an estate management scheme under section 69 of the 1993 Act. That is clearly not our intention. The amendment will preserve the existing right.
691 I commend new clause 12 and amendment No. 35 to the House and, in the light of what I have said and the assurance that I have given about the extension of rights, I invite the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) not to press new clause 4 and amendment No. 25.

§ Sue Doughty (Guildford)
New clause 4 was tabled because we want to extend the same rights of self-management given to leaseholders in blocks of flats to enfranchised owners in estate management schemes. Under those antiquated schemes, leaseholders who buy their freehold might find themselves with fewer rights than they had before and face higher charges despite the substantial expenditure and administrative difficulty of enfranchisement.
The annual fee payable to their previous landlord for managing the scheme can be higher than their erstwhile ground rent and landlords frequently impose onerous charges in respect of consents for alterations and supervision of work. That aspect of being forced to pay a landlord's surveyor—often at extremely high rates—to agree and supervise work evolved long before the days of conservation areas and careful planning controls by local authorities. Enfranchised owners subject to such charges and double surveillance are understandably resentful. Now that leaseholders in blocks of flats are being given a no-fault right to manage their own affairs, the anomalous position of freehold owners in the outmoded estate management schemes is even more inequitable than it was.
I appreciate that, since the new clause was tabled, the Government have introduced a new clause that certainly goes some way to dealing with the concerns that I have expressed. However, we want to know how far the new clause will go towards dealing with the problem. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

§ Mr. Cash
This group of new clauses and amendments, including the Liberal Democrat proposal, deals with an extremely important issue. However, I was slightly surprised by the fact that the Minister hardly provided the type of explanation that one would have expected in relation to new clauses—I refer in particular to new clause 12—that are not only extremely long but contain very complicated arrangements.
7.15 pm
New clause 12(1) says that the new clause applies to schemes under

"(a) section 19 of the 1967 Act (estate management schemes in connection with enfranchisement under that Act),

(b) Chapter 4 of Part 1 of the 1993 Act (estate management schemes in connection with enfranchisement under the 1967 Act or Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the 1993 Act), or

(c) Section 94(6) of the 1993 Act (corresponding schemes in relation to areas occupied under leases from Crown)".

Subsection (1) also includes provision for imposing on persons occupying or interested in property an obligation to make payments (`estate charges')". I have described the three types of schemes to which the new clause will apply.
Subsection (2) adds:
A variable estate charge is payable only to the extent that the amount of the charge is reasonable; and 'variable estate charge' means an estate which is neither— 692

(a) specified in the scheme, nor

(b) calculated in accordance with a formula specified in the scheme."

Given the size of the Government's majority in the House, we should not imagine that the new clause will not be enacted. Subsection (3) states: Any person on whom an obligation to pay an estate charge is imposed by the scheme may apply to a leasehold valuation tribunal for an order varying the scheme in such manner as is specified in the application on the grounds that—

(a) any estate charge specified in the scheme is unreasonable, or

(b) any formula specified in the scheme in accordance with which any estate charge is calculated is unreasonable."

We all know that the word "unreasonable" means what a court—or tribunal in this case—regards as unreasonable. The question of whether something is unreasonable is determined by the court. That does not necessarily mean that everything will work out in the way that the Government intend, so I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. I doubt whether the hon. Lady will be able to say what would be regarded, in given circumstances, as being unreasonable, although had she spent more time on her explanation, she might have been able to make the position clearer.
Subsection (4) states: If the grounds on which the application was made are established to the satisfaction of the tribunal, it may make an order varying the scheme in such manner as is specified in the order. Again, we have no idea as to the manner in which the tribunal would make such an order. The phrase varying the scheme is such manner as is specified invites the question: what will the tribunal actually do? The Government might know, but they have not told us and the Minister's opening remarks did not tell us what grounds on which the application was made would be likely to satisfy the tribunal. However, the tribunal will be able to vary the scheme in the manner that it determines.
Subsection (5) states: The variation specified in the order may be—

(a) the variation specified in the application, or

(b) Such other variation as the tribunal thinks fit."

We know what "thinks fit" means in these circumstances, because it is a well-established principle of law that where, for example, those words—or, in analogous circumstances in the opinion of—are used, they are non-justiciable in the general context of the deliberations. An enormous power is granted to the tribunal. The variation specified in the older is immensely important to those who are assessing the variation in any given scheme.
Subsection (6) provides: An application may be made to a leasehold valuation tribunal for a determination whether an estate charge is payable by a person and, if it is, as to—

(a) the person by whom it is payable,

(b) the person to whom it is payable,

(c) the amount which is payable,

(d) the date at or by which it is payable, and

(e) the manner in which it is payable."

Clearly, an enormous range of matters go before the tribunal, but the Minister has provided no explanation of the implications lying behind the provision. It may be 693 beneficial, but we have had no explanation. The Minister disposed of all the new clauses in about five minutes at most, yet these matters are crucial to those affected.
Subsection (7) goes on to say that the matters to which I referred—the application made to the leasehold tribunal in the respects that I outlined— applies whether or not any payment has been made. That moves us into deeper territory because the subsection will apply irrespective of whether a payment has been made, yet, as we saw, subsection (6) makes it clear that the question arises in relation to whether an estate charge is payable. A distinction is being made between what is payable and what is paid, which leaves an enormous amount at large.
Subsection (8) continues: The jurisdiction conferred on a leasehold valuation tribunal in respect of any matter by virtue of subsection (6)", to which I have twice referred, is in addition to any jurisdiction of a court in respect of the matter. Frankly, that is exceedingly wide. It is not just a question of the functions of a tribunal: it extends to a wide arena, which is almost impossible to identify.
Subsection (9) states: No application under subsection (6) may be made in respect of a matter which—

(a) has been agreed or admitted by the person concerned,

(b) has been, or is to be, referred to arbitration pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement to which that person is a party,

(c) has been the subject of determination by a court, or

(d) has been the subject of determination by an arbitral tribunal pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement."

All those matters are excluded, but the impact on the scheme and the persons concerned remains serious.
Subsection (10) continues: But the person is not to be taken to have agreed or admitted any matter by reason only of having made any payment. The fact that a person has paid up, when the gravamen of the situation depends on payment, means that the person's agreement or admission cannot be assumed to mean anything by reason only of having made a payment. The Minister should have provided a proper explanation of the proposals, but she only skipped through them.
Under subsection (11): An agreement (other than a post-dispute arbitration agreement) is void in so far as it purports to provide for a determination—

(a) in a particular manner, or

(b) on particular evidence".

We are dealing with a range of generalities and a series of propositions here. There are some sensible provisions such as assisting people through these schemes, but we have no idea whether they are capable of working effectively or whether people will be prejudiced by these arrangements.
694 I acknowledge that Bills need definitions, but a degree of opaqueness is apparent in the wording of subsection (11)—particularly where it states that an agreement other than a post-dispute arbitration agreement is void—when in subsection (12), the definition subsection, it states that a —post-dispute arbitration agreement', in relation to any matter, means an arbitration agreement made after a dispute about the matter has arisen". It goes on to provide further definitions with which I would not disagree, according to which 'arbitration agreement' and 'arbitral tribunal' have the same meanings as in Part I of the Arbitration Act 1996". For all those reasons, it is difficult to understand how the Minister can make such a brief statement saying what the measure provides. The Government know that they will get their way because they have a majority. Nevertheless, a full and proper explanation is expected.
Let us move on to new clause 4, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) provided a brief explanation of what she wanted, but accepted that the Government have produced their own version. With respect to types of dwellings affected, the new clause states: This Chapter shall from the commencement of this Act apply to a dwelling within the meaning of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 as amended, and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, as amended, which—

(a) has been enfranchised;

(b) is situated within an area ('scheme area') in respect of which a scheme of management has been approved and is in force pursuant to section 19 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 or Chapter IV of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993."

It then goes on to say: The right to manage provision of this Chapter shall come into operation two months after a notice has been served by, or on behalf of not less than one half of the owners of enfranchised properties within the scheme area, and the form of notice shall be prescribed by regulations and shall be deemed to have been served from the seventh day after the notice has been sent by first class recorded delivery post addressed to the landlord or his agent at his last known address or left at such premises. On demand, the landlord shall provide an enfranchised owner intending to join with others to serve a notice of right to manage with the names and addresses of all enfranchised owners within the scheme area. 7.30 pm
I do not know for sure, because I have not heard. whether the Liberal Democrats will pursue new clause 4, but, if they do not, it will not be because of any explanation from the Minister as to the manner in which the proposals in new clause 12. which is extremely extensive, have been understood by the House. No one could possibly have understood from what the Minister has said exactly what is at stake and how the proposals would operate. I am sorry to have to say this, but the Minister's explanation was rather truncated, to say the least, and the House deserves better than that.
The Liberal Democrats also tabled amendment No. 25 to clause 72 on the qualifying rules in relation to the right to manage. Under their amendment, they propose to insert 695 a new provision at the end of line 20 on page 34, which relates to the premises to which chapter 1 applies. The Bill states that chapter 1 applies to premises if—

(a) they consist of a self-contained building or part of a building, with or without appurtenant property,

(b) they contain two or more flats held by qualifying tenants, and

(c) the total number of flats held by such tenants is not less than two-thirds of the total number of flats contained in the premises."

Under amendment No. 25, the Liberal Democrats would add: or—

(d) they consist of individual houses and blocks of flats comprised in an estate management scheme."

I may have missed something, but I heard no clear explanation of how amendment No. 25 interacts with the provisions that I have already described.
We then come to Government amendment No. 35, which, by any reasonable standards, is pretty convoluted, but for the benefit of the House, I should say that it would amend clause 116, which refers to qualifying leases, Clause 116 refers to the 1993 Act to which we have already referred and states: In section 5(1) of the 1993 Act (which provides that a qualifying tenant is a tenant under a long lease which is at a low rent or for a particularly long term), omit 'which is at a low rent or for a particularly long term—. The Government then propose to add subsection (2), which states: In section 69(1)(b) of the 1993 Act (estate management schemes), for the words 'by virtue of the amendments of that Chapter made by paragraph 3 of Schedule 9 to the Housing Act 1996 (c.52)' substitute 'in circumstances in which, but for section 116(1) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and the repeal by that Act of paragraph 3 of Schedule 9 to the Housing Act 1996 (c.52), they would have been entitled to acquire it by virtue of the amendments of that Chapter made by that paragraph'. We all know that legislation can be convoluted, but, by no reasonable standards can we regard with equanimity the insertion of provisions of that kind into clause 116 without the Minister fully explaining exactly what the Government have in mind. No one reading their proposals—a member of the public, anyone involved in leaseholds or anyone other than a lawyer who specialises in such matters—could possibly follow all that.
For the reasons that I have already given, it is by no means satisfactory that the Government have simply introduced those proposals without adequate explanation and at this late stage. After all, let us face it, the Bill started out many months, if not years, ago. It has been through about five stages in the other place and it has been debated on Second Reading and in Committee in this House, and we are now on Report. We are all in favour of improving the Bill. I have repeatedly said that we want it to be improved and, furthermore, that we want to be sure that it makes improved and enhanced provision for the benefit not only of commonhold but of leasehold arrangements. However, it certainly does not improve the quality of debate in the House if, in fact, no explanation or description of the proposals is given.
I do not want to make any invidious comparisons, but certainly with regard to the issues that we discussed earlier, we heard an extensive description of the Government's arguments. Sometimes their proposals were not adequate and we had to vote against them, but that 696 does not alter the fact that, in matters of such importance affecting so many people, we must have a proper explanation. The best thing that the Minister could do—if she would be good enough—is to do as I have asked and, even if we have to sit here for a little time, provide a proper explanation of what these provisions involve. I have no doubt that we would then all be the wiser and the explanation would be on the record.
We need to make another point in this context: under the current rules of statutory interpretation, which have changed considerably over the many years during which I have been involved in this sort of business, it is now far more likely that the courts will consider what the Minister has said and the nature of the debate in Parliament, and as we move further down the route of other jurisdictions which seem to impinge on our legislation, that rule will become even more readily applicable. Therefore, it is absolutely incumbent on Ministers to explain fully what they are up to.
The reason why we are legislating is to ensure that the people of this country have the opportunity to hear a full explanation. Not everyone would expect to be able to understand every word of the Bill's drafting. It is complicated; we all know that. However, it is important that these matters be fully and adequately explained to the House and put on the record. Hansard comes out every day; some of it is extremely tedious to read, but for those who are affected by these important provisions, a proper and full explanation is required.
I invite the Minister, if not to go back to square one, to give us a proper and full explanation of these provisions, because her introduction of new clause 12 left us not much the wiser.

§ Mr. Mark Field
The Minister will be relieved to know that I will not speak at length, in view of the comprehensive comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).
I understand that there are about 3.8 million leaseholders in this country. At times, when the Bill has been making its slow and steady way towards the statute book, I have wondered whether all of them live in my constituency—I think that a fair number of them do.

§ Mr. Sanders
The amendments cover people who are not leaseholders but have enfranchised. I am on the same side as the hon. Gentleman on this issue, but I emphasise that these amendments are very important and cover far more people than leaseholders alone.

§ Mr. Field
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
The high and somewhat uncertain cost of enfranchisement, which has been discussed, is very much a live issue, particularly in central London. The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone reflected the concern about the enormous associated bureaucracy. If the Government are unable to tell us at this juncture how they envisage the estate management schemes working, lawyers will have a field day. I should perhaps say that I am a former member of that profession. We will see an expensive and protracted exercise in bluff and counter-bluff, based on little decisive evidence.
I hope that the Minister will go into some detail to explain how she envisages new clause 12 and Government amendment No. 35 working. The terms of 697 the new clause are very extensive; the worry is that it will do little good for the many former leaseholders and those who are enfranchising and want to see the benefit of the legislation. If, as has so often been the case, it has not been thought through properly and is too complicated, this worthwhile effort to introduce another piece of legislation—we have had a number of Acts going back to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, which was the trailblazer in this area—will simply create problems. Without sufficient improvement and clarification, the Bill will cause great problems. I hope that the Minister will be able to elucidate these matters.
Simply putting into place a new layer of complicated legislation will not achieve the trailblazing goals of six or seven years ago that the Labour party made great play of, particularly before the 1997 election. The worst thing is that many millions of leaseholders will find themselves still in a problematic situation with a lot of new legislation on the statute book that achieves very little. I hope that, given the comments of the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, we will have more explanation from the Minister about how the new clause will work.

7.45 pm

§ Ms Keeble
I shall start by commenting on the points raised by the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty); I will then deal with those of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). There are also some general points to consider as well as specific ones.
The hon. Member for Guildford spoke about the right to manage—the right to manage is for blocks of flats, but we are dealing with whole estates. She also referred to the reasonableness of the costs of estate management schemes. We brought forward new clause 12 to deal with that issue. It will provide that the charges under estate management schemes will be payable only to the extent that they are reasonable. The leasehold valuation tribunals will have the power to determine the extent to which such charges are reasonable. I will give an explanation of the definition of "reasonableness" that I hope will keep the hon. Member for Stone happy. It is precisely to deal with some of the issues referred to by the hon. Lady that we introduced the new clause.
The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument was that the new clause is very long and has been introduced at a late stage of the Bill's proceedings. Nobody could gainsay that. However, we have constantly brought forward amendments to refine the Bill. It has been a long process; before the Bill even reached this House, it was introduced twice in the other place, so there has been constant refinement. We have accepted throughout the process that it is still possible to make amendments. The hon. Gentleman has paid tribute to the fact that the Government have brought forward many amendments, even at this stage, to deal with concerns that were raised in Committee by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
As I will probably say ad nauseam, tonight and on Wednesday, many of the issues in the Bill are extremely complex. Many provisions are interrelated and have knock-on effects on various pieces of legislation. We are dealing with people's homes and must ensure that provisions are watertight; people get very sensitive if 698 changes are made to legislation that affects their home and there are unintended consequences. Therefore, the changes tend to be complex. We run into problems if a simple amendment has unforeseen consequences or has not been thought through properly.
The hon. Gentleman said that new clause 12 is not clear, but I think that it is startling clear. It sets out the arrangements for ensuring that people know their rights and are able to exercise them. I understand that guidance will not be forthcoming because all the steps in the process are clearly set out in new clause 12. It refers to two Acts because two Acts have been involved in enfranchisement. That point has been raised repeatedly on both sides of the House—perhaps more often from my hon. Friends, whose constituents have enfranchised under various pieces of legislation. I argue that these arrangements—unusually, perhaps, for a complex piece of legislation—are set out as a clear process.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the use of "reasonable". I understand that that was first applied to variable charges under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Applying it to charges made under the estate management schemes merely follows the long-established precedent for service charges. The LVT will consider all circumstances in reaching a view on reasonableness, just as it does now.
If arbitration takes place on estate management schemes, it is up to the parties to agree an arbitrator. The purpose of the new clause is to prevent binding arbitration clauses in schemes that would deny access to the LVT. The drafting follows the general approach taken in the Bill towards service and administration charges, and the hon. Gentleman will understand that we need such regimes to be as close to one another as possible.
The hon. Member for Stone asked for information on the point contained in amendment No. 35. As I have said previously, the Bill includes several points at which an amendment in one place would have an unintended consequence elsewhere. Several later amendments would also do just that. In this case, once clause 116 came into force, we should be removing an existing right to make an application for an estate management scheme under section 69 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. That was not our intention.

§ Mr. Cash
I am intrigued that new clause 12(1)(b), as drafted for the Government by parliamentary counsel, refers to "Chapter 4" while the 1993 Act contains "Chapter IV". The point may seem trivial, but can the Minister explain that? Chapter IV contains important provisions, and if amendments are being made to it in such a way, who is to say that they may not contain other similar mistakes?

§ Ms Keeble
I do not have the 1993 Act in front of me, but I shall ensure that that point is checked and give the hon. Gentleman an answer shortly.

§ Mr. Cash
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am surprised to hear the Minister say that she does not have the 1993 Act in front of her. I do not want to make a meal of the point, but it is impossible for her to give the explanation that I have asked for unless she has the 1993 Act. Indeed, the Minister has not explained the point, except by a vague reference to reasonableness. We cannot 699 possibly carry on trying to extract explanations from a Minister who does not have with her even the Act that she would amend.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)
The hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that that verges on the matters for debate and is not a point of order for me. I can recall, however, that we have managed, with greater disability, to debate matters in the past.

§ Ms Keeble
I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I had to have with me every piece of legislation to which the Bill refers, the Table would be entirely covered.
The hon. Member for Stone probably knows much better than I do the different arrangements made in different Acts for enfranchisement. I shall ensure that his point of detail is dealt with.
Amendment No. 35 is necessary to ensure that our proposals do not have unintended consequences. We want to ensure that it continues to be possible to request consent for the making of an application for the approval of an estate management scheme. With that explanation, I urge the House to support the Government new clause and amendment, and I ask those who tabled the new clause 4 and amendment No. 25 to withdraw them.

§ Mr. Cash
rose —

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak again.

§ Question put and agreed to.

§ Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

§ Mr. Cash
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having relatively recently come to the Front Bench, I wonder whether I might be able to speak on new clause stand part?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House foi long enough to appreciate that we do not have stand part debates on consideration. They are a feature only of deliberations in Committee.

§ Sue Doughty
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister invited me to withdraw new clause 4. Should I be given the opportunity to respond to that request?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
No. What the Minister said was unnecessary. We were dealing with the lead new clause in the group—new clause 12—and new clause 4 fell when that was decided.