LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 14 November 1988)

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their amendment to Clause 60 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their amendment in lieu thereof.
When we debated the procedures for setting up a housing action trust last July, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that the Opposition were, proposing that there should be a proper basis of consent established for taking over any particular estate … The ultimate choice should lie with tenants when it comes to deciding what will happen to their homes". Since the announcement of the proposed HAT areas and our debates in July we have spent the past few months listening to what people have to say.
HATs are a major new initiative which will bring what is now nearly £200 million of extra resources over the next three years to help transform the quality of life for tenants living on some of our most run-down council estates. But the facts about HATs are not getting across to individual tenants. Local authorities and tenant groups have greeted the Government's proposals with suspicion and hostility; mainly, they tell us, because no ballot had been allowed for.
Many tenants have told us that they could feel happy with the idea of housing action trusts only if they first have a ballot. The Government have therefore decided to accept the principle embodied in the amendments to the Bill made in this House—that there should be a ballot of tenants before the Secretary of State makes a HAT designation order.
However, the Opposition amendments agreed in this House in July need some clarification on a number of legal points. For example, they left unclear. what is meant by "tenants"; they left unclear the form a ballot might take—that is, whether it should be by voting paper in a ballot box or by postal vote; they left unclear what procedures should apply to the regulations and what their purpose would be; and they left unclear whether the arrangements for a ballot could be carried out by someone other than the Secretary of State on his behalf.
We also did not feel that the form of the ballot embodied in the Opposition amendments was quite right for HATs. The Opposition amendments required a ballot whereby a majority of those eligible should have to vote in favour of the proposals. We prefer the matter to be decided by a majority of those voting. This is because there is one question only, to which the answer is a simple yes or no. If the answer 839 is yes, my honourable friend will only then be able to make an order which both Houses will have to approve.
The Government amendments provide that all secure tenants will have a vote, as well as any other tenants whom the Secretary of State may wish to prescribe in regulations. We have provided for my right honourable friend to delegate the arrangements for a ballot to another body such as the Electoral Reform Society, and I am happy to say that the society has agreed to make the arrangements. He also has power to conduct the ballot himself.
For the avoidance of doubt, let me make it quite clear that under the terms of the Government's amendment my right honourable friend cannot make a HAT designation order unless a ballot or poll has been conducted. This issue was debated at length in another place last Friday. My right honourable friend set out the issues very clearly there and the House overwhelmingly endorsed the amendments proposed by the Government by 246 votes to 74, a government majority of 172. Your Lordships will doubtless agree that that must be an indication of approval that the Government have taken note of the amendments made by this House and listened to what tenants had to say. We were challenged to let tenants have a say and we shall. We believe that the amendments made by the Commons are the best way of giving this effect. I therefore ask your Lordships not to insist on your amendments to which the Commons have disagreed and to agree to the amendments proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their amendment to Clause 60 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their amendments in lieu thereof.—(The Earl of Caithness.)

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, do the Government want the good news or the bad news first? Let me give them the bad news. First, we are deeply dissatisfied with the way in which this Bill has gone through its remaining stages in another place. I am sure that it is not for us to criticise the conduct of another place. Nevertheless, at the very last minute—that is to say, last Friday—the Government had to impose a timetable Motion on consideration of our amendments to this Bill, and that cannot be other than derogatory to the dignity of this House.
There should have been full consideration by another place without a timetable Motion and without a guillotine of all the amendments which your Lordships made to this Bill when it was undergoing its long and arduous progress through this House. To that extent we are very dissatisfied with the position that we find ourselves in on the very eve of Prorogation and the end of this Session.
Secondly, though I listened with interest to what the Minister said, I believe that he was unfair to the amendments that your Lordships agreed to on my Motion in July. He said that we did not define a ballot or tenants. Our amendment said that the Secretary of State shall make arrangements for the conduct of the 840 ballot of tenants. Therefore it is up to the Secretary of State under our amendment to define a ballot and tenants. I do not find that argument very convincing as regards the wording of our amendment.
The good news is that I accept without hesitation that the Government have agreed to give effect to our amendment in different words. We accept the assurances given by the Secretary of State in another place and by the Minister to your Lordships this afternoon. We are happy to agree to the amendments that the Commons are proposing in lieu of our amendments.

§ Lord Tordoff
My Lords, I do not agree without hesitation. I believe that one has to have a moment's hesitation, but having had it, I hasten to say that we are happy to accept these amendments as well. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in reading out the results of the Division in another place, referred to 70 or so votes against the Government's amendment. I believe that noble Lords should recognise that the people who voted against the Government's amendment were doing so largely in support of your Lordships' amendment, feeling that it was a better amendment than the government one.
I sustain that point of view. My honourable friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey made that point in the debate. We should have preferred that there be a majority of all tenants in the HAT area in favour before a change was made. Nevertheless, the ballot that the Government are proposing as regards HATs is far better than the ballot that they are proposing in other places. At least here the abstentions, the dead and the empty houses are not being counted as in favour of the proposition. This is a straight decision between those people who are voting in the ballot.
As a member of the Electoral Reform Society I declare an interest because I am sure this measure will do its income quite a lot of good, and I applaud that. Generally, this is a satisfactory outcome of the decisions made in your Lordships' House. It shows that your Lordships make an important contribution to legislation passing through this House. I believe that the tenants in HATs now have a better chance of sorting out their own fate. Noble Lords can be congratulated on bringing that matter to the Government's attention and pressing them to take action. When this Bill first saw the light of day over a year ago that was not the intention of the Government. In accepting the Government's amendment I have a certain amount of hesitation, but nevertheless I applaud it.

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given to the Government's amendments both by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, even though he had a moment's hesitation. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, did not even have that.
As regards the arrangements in another place, I shall not comment on them. I believe it is not the place of your Lordships' House to comment on them. I listened to some of the discussion. I say to the noble 841 Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that I remember full well when in Opposition finding that his party also guillotined the consideration of your Lordships' amendments.