HL Deb 08 July 1993 vol 547 cc1522-33

4.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde)

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reason and amendments be now considered.

Moved, That the Commons reason and amendments be now considered. —(Lord Strathclyde.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO A

LORDS AMENDMENT AND COMMONS

AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN LORDS

AMENDMENTS

[The page and line refer to Bill (64) as first printed by the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT

1 Clause 5, page 6, line 7, at end insert:

("(2A) Subsection (I) does not apply where the immediate landlord under the lease is a registered housing association and all the flats in the premises are—

  1. (a) particularly suitable, having regard to their location, size, design, heating systems and other features, for occupation by persons of pensionable age, and
  2. (b) are occupied by persons of pensionable age or physically disabled persons, and
  3. (c) have special facilities which include the services of either a resident warden or a non-resident warden and a means for calling them.")

The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason:

1A Because it is undesirable to exclude premises of the kind described in the amendment from the right to enfranchise.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A.

The House will no doubt recall that this amendment, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was accepted by the House on Report. Its effect is to exclude from enfranchisement and lease renewal premises where the immediate landlord is a registered housing association and where all the flats in the block are designed as accommodation for the elderly or disabled. So far so good. The record will show that I said at the time that I understood the reasons for the amendment. But the amendment is discriminatory. There is no fundamental reason why housing association developments for the elderly and disabled should be excluded from the scope of enfranchisement. Long leaseholders in such accommodation have as much right as any others to make a choice about taking control of their homes. After all, they are already effectively owners in the same way as any other long leaseholders.

It has been suggested that long leaseholders in that type of accommodation do not really want to enfranchise; they simply want to extend their leases. However, the amendment would also exclude such tenants from the right to lease renewal. As your Lordships will recall, an amendment was made in the House which gives long leaseholders the option of renewing their leases or enfranchising. There is no justification on that ground for the exclusion of housing designed for occupation by the elderly and the disabled.

However, perhaps even more important, since the Report stage both Age Concern and the Association of Retired Persons Over 50 have expressed their dismay at the exemption from enfranchisement of such developments. They are concerned for the leaseholders living in badly managed blocks who are angry and frustrated to discover that they will not now be able to take control of their property. The claim that long leaseholders in blocks designed for the elderly and disabled are not interested in enfranchising is not true. Bad management does exist in such blocks, and there can be no justification for preventing the long leaseholders from taking control of their homes.

It is true that the opinion of the House was not properly tested in the way that it should have been. I do not believe that it is the will of your Lordships' House that such a discriminatory amendment should be included in the Bill; indeed, in another place a clear majority (243 to 148) disagreed with the amendment on a Division.

The amendment is not only discriminatory, it is also wrong in principle. Further, it is unwanted by the very people whose rights it purports to interfere with. It is unreasonable. Therefore, I hope that the House will now agree with the other place. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1A.—(Lord Strathclyde.)

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, I have to say that I believe many of us—and I do not mean just those of us on these Benches—will be rather dismayed that we are being asked to accept the rejection of our amendment by the other place. The amendment would have prevented the enfranchisement of sheltered housing held on leasehold and thus would have prevented the risk of losing such sheltered housing in the future for the elderly.

There is all-party agreement on previous legislation that housing designed for the elderly with wardens and wheelchair access—I emphasise that we are not just talking about converted bungalows but about sheltered housing with wardens —should remain for the elderly. We all know that the number of over-75s is growing rapidly; indeed, by the year 2001 there will probably be a million over-85s in the country. If they are to enjoy care in the community as they would wish, rather than residential care, we need to increase and not reduce the supply of sheltered housing.

The Minister made two points. He said, first, that the elderly should not be exempt from the right to enfranchisement because that would be discriminatory. But on numerous occasions whenever the issue has been discussed in the past we have made precisely that decision—that is, to discriminate against some elderly people now in order to protect the rights of many more elderly in the future. For example, we did so in this House on an all-party basis. We agreed that local authority rented sheltered housing should be protected from the right to buy. Secondly, we agreed that housing association rented sheltered housing should be protected from the right to buy. Moreover, we all agreed that housing association leasehold sheltered housing should be protected from the right to buy where it has enjoyed housing association grant from government.

However, here, where we have housing association leasehold sheltered housing which has not received government grant, but very often contributions from charities to enable the warden services to be provided, such housing may now be bought outright and, in time, when children and grandchildren realise the asset, will be permanently lost for the use of frail and elderly people.

The Government's second argument is that, in any case, such housing is protected by covenants. However, covenants are sometimes frail vessels. They are obviously subject to mutual agreement between leaseholders and freeholders. Indeed, it is precisely because of the inadequacy of covenants to protect tenures and such arrangements that, when we talked about heritage property, the Government were not merely content to rely on covenants but agreed to introduce estate management schemes. They accepted amendments from all parts of the House on an all-party basis to strengthen the provision because it was accepted that covenants were not enough. If covenants were not enough for heritage areas, they are even less appropriate a device to ensure that leasehold sheltered housing for the elderly remains available for them.

In Committee, the amendment had all-party support. It had support from the Conservative Benches and the Cross-Benches, as well as from the Opposition Benches. When the matter was pressed to a Division to ensure that the provision was introduced into the Bill, I believe that we were acting in the finest tradition of an all-party revising Chamber, thinking to the future. When the Government failed to put in Tellers, we naturally assumed that that was because of the strength of support of our argument and that, effectively, they accepted the amendment. But, alas, it was not because the Government were attentive to our arguments; it was because the Government were very inattentive to our procedures.

It was a wise amendment. I believe that the Government in another place have been foolish and short-sighted to reject it. It is not a political issue; it is a care-in-the-community issue in which we are trying to protect the well-being of elderly people in the future. I suppose that we can only acquiesce. However, I do not believe that there is any Member of the House—apart, that is, from those on the Government Front Bench—who does not believe that to accept the rejection of the amendment by the House of Commons is profoundly unwise.

4.30 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, for her support for the amendment which I moved. I am aware that in moving it I did so with, as the noble Baroness has said, the support of many noble Lords. I express my profound disappointment not only with the response which the amendment obtained in another place but also with the comments of the Minister. He said that it was clearly not the will of this House that the amendment should be included in the Bill. How can he say that when it was the Government who failed to give your Lordships the opportunity to express opposition to the measure?

The Minister has said that the amendment is discriminatory. The Commons reason for disagreeing with the amendment states: it is undesirable to exclude premises of the kind described in the amendment". I must tell the Minister that discrimination relates to people. The Minister has mentioned the balance we must find in treating people of different ages and different circumstances differently and dealing with a particular housing matter. I spoke for the National Federation of Housing Associations in moving the amendment and in my mind the balance came down in favour of attempting to preserve such specialist housing stock as we have. The amendment was not an attempt to discriminate against elderly people. I would certainly not wish it to be seen in that light. Were there more specialist housing stock, the matter would simply not have arisen. The amendment itself was based on legislation which already exists—the right to buy legislation—from which is excluded such stock. To suggest that this amendment was in some way off the wall and an objectionable way of going about things is to question the very legislation to which your Lordships agreed some seven years ago. However, tempted as I am to test the opinion of the House on this occasion because it has not been tested, I must accept that Members at the other end of the corridor have expressed an opinion that we shall sadly have to accept.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, like the two noble Baronesses who have spoken, I am indeed sorry that, another place should have rejected your Lordships' decision on this matter. The case has been strongly made out for saying that provision for the elderly and infirm should be protected and kept for that purpose. That, as I understand i t, was the reason for the original amendment. It is therefore a great pity that another place should apparently have disregarded those considerations. It is perhaps typical of these days that where real social concern for protecting the interests of those who are vulnerable in one way or another arises, it is your Lordships' House rather than another place which concerns itself with that. Whatever else we do, that is the message we might send to another place in the light of its decision on this matter.

Lord Monson

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, I believe nearly all of us would agree that the purpose-built sheltered housing schemes with wardens, which are the subject of this amendment, fill a vital social need given our rapidly ageing population. It would be a great pity to do anything which fragmented these schemes or which for that matter discouraged housing associations from providing them. The Government have on earlier occasions made soothing noises about restrictive covenants, but they can be varied or discharged by the courts. A court's attitude to any particular arrangement cannot be predicted in advance. As regards these kinds of developments, there is surely practically no question of bad or inefficient management. The Minister denied this, but I cannot believe that housing associations are wicked or rapacious landlords.

Furthermore, leaseholders will have bought their flats or maisonettes willingly, with their eyes open and with no hope or thought of enfranchisement. Therefore the Government's rejection of our amendment must be either doctrinaire or opportunist. I say opportunist because presumably they think the:r move will be electorally popular. But as the prospect of getting rid of a bad landlord will rarely enter the equation, the Government can only have made their assumption on the basis that grateful leaseholders will be able to obtain their freeholds at a bargain price to pass on eventually to their descendants. However, although a few wealthy people in Belgravia will indeed be able to obtain freeholds at a bargain price, this does not hold good for the majority of leaseholders.

Since the last time that we debated this Bill, a highly respected firm of estate agents has published its conclusions. That firm has no axe to grind. It does not oppose the Bill and indeed the valuaLion departments of the firm stand to benefit considerably from the passage of the Bill. The firm states, among other things: The publicised aims of the legislation will not be fulfilled. Windfall gains will be greatest for those with the most expensive properties. The legislation will leave certain leaseholders in a far worse position than they are currently and leaseholders with long leases"— that is, leases with over 90 years to run— will make little or no gain and will probably have to pay more to enfranchise under the Act than it would cost them to buy the freehold in the open market". It would seem the Government's victory is a hollow one.

Lord Renton

My Lords, we did not make many amendments to this Bill and most of those that were made were fairly innocuous. This amendment, which has not been accepted in another place, was one of those amendments of principle intended to benefit people who need our help. It is deeply regrettable that the Government persuaded Members of another place not to accept it. Normally we ask another place to think again only once, but there are very rare occasions when we could ask it to think yet again. Unless there has been some unholy conspiracy within the usual channels, I should be very glad to support any move that there is to make the House of Commons think yet again.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, I am much saddened by what has been said this afternoon, particularly by so many of my noble friends. My noble friend Lord Renton has just said that we had not amended the Bill much. But some 300 amendments went from this House to another place. They were amendments of fundamental importance on leasehold extension; a residency test; inheritance tax exemption; and on protecting cathedral closes. Those were important amendments. Amendments were also made to help charitable housing associations which were put forward and indeed supported by my noble friend himself. It is not true to say that the House did not do its job extremely well in revising this legislation and putting forward amendments that were accepted by another place.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I am glad my noble friend has pointed out that we did amend 300 times, but that is not out of the ordinary these days with the kind of Bills that are sent to us from another place. But most of the amendments that were made were made by consent and were made to improve the Bill. There were some controversial amendments made but not many. This is one which essentially in the opinion of both sides of the House could well have been accepted. I think it is regrettable that it was not.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, I believe there are some fundamental misconceptions about what this amendment deals with. It deals only with long leaseholders; in other words, those elderly people who may well have already been given a lease for 70 or even 100 years. In the rest of the Bill we have given people the right to enfranchise if they have a lease of that length. Why is it that we cannot do that for elderly people, particularly in view of the fact that enfranchisement itself has no effect on the terms of leases of those tenants? Much has been said on this matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that restrictive covenants were frail vessels. I do not think that they are. They can be altered only with the agreement of all parties to the lease. If all parties to the lease agree then why should they not do so?

The amendment will affect only a very small number of leaseholders because it does not exclude all flats designed for the elderly or disabled but only those where the immediate landlord is a registered housing association. The numbers affected will be limited still further because most property let on long leases by housing associations is let under the leasehold schemes for the elderly. Those are shared ownership schemes in which the maximum share a tenant can purchase is 75 per cent. Therefore, such leases would not qualify for enfranchisement or lease renewal in any case because a tenant must own 100 per cent. in order to qualify.

Finally, perhaps I may turn to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I was very surprised by his speech. When I opened the debate I said that we had received representations both from Age Concern and the Association of Retired Persons Over 50 which, as organisations which are supposed to represent the elderly, were deeply distressed by the amendment. It was on the basis of their representations that the other place rejected the amendment. I believe that it would be very strange if this House did not do the same.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

2 After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:

Effect on initial notice of designation for

inheritance tax purposes and applications for designation

(".—(I) A notice given under section I I shall be of no effect if on the relevant date the whole or any part of.—

  1. (a) the specified premises, or
  2. (b) any property specified in the notice under section 11(3) (a) (ii), is qualifying property.

(2) For the purposes of this section the whole or any part of the specified premises, or of any property specified as mentioned in subsection (1), is qualifying property if.—

  1. (a) it has been designated under section 31(1) (b), (c) or (d) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (designation and undertakings relating to conditionally exempt transfers), whether with or without any other property, and no chargeable event has subsequently occurred with respect to it; or
  2. (b) an application to the Board for it to be so designated is pending; or
  3. (c) it is the property of a body not established or conducted for profit and a direction has been given in relation to it under section 26 of that Act (gifts for public benefit), whether with or without any other property; or
  4. (d) an application to the Board for a direction to be so given in relation to it is pending.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) an application is pending as from the time when it is made to the Board until such time as it is either granted or refused by the Board or withdrawn by the applicant; and for this purpose an application shall not be regarded as made unless and until the applicant has submitted to the Board all such information in support of the application as is required by the Board.

(4) A notice given under section 11 shall cease to have effect if, before a binding contract is entered into in pursuance of the notice, the whole or any part of.—

  1. (a) the specified premises, or
  2. (b) any property specified in the notice under section 11(3) (a) (ii),
becomes qualifying property.

(5) Where a notice under section 11 ceases to have effect by virtue of subsection (4) above—

  1. (a) the nominee purchaser shall not be liable for any costs under section 29; and
  2. (b) the person who applied or is applying for designation or a direction shall be liable—
    1. (i) to the qualifying tenants by whom the notice was given for all reasonable costs incurred by them in the preparation and giving of the notice; and
    2. (ii) to the nominee purchaser for all reasonable costs incurred in pursuance of the notice by him or by any other person who has acted as the nominee purchaser.

(6) Where it is claimed that subsection (1) or (4) applies in relation to a notice under section 11, the person making the claim shall, at the time of making it, furnish the nominee purchaser with evidence in support of it; and if he fails to do so he shall be liable for any costs which are reasonably incurred by the nominee purchaser in consequence of the failure.

(7) In subsection (2) as it has effect for the purposes of subsection (1)—

  1. (a) paragraphs (a) and (b) apply to designation under section 34(1) (a), (b) or (c) of the Finance Act 1975 or section 77(1) (b), (c) or (d) of the Finance Act 1976 as they apply to designation under section 31(1) (b), (c) or (d) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984; and
  2. (b) paragraphs (c) and (d) apply to a direction under paragraph 13 of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1975 as they apply to a direction under section 26 of that Act of 1984.

(8) In this section—

The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment:

2A Line 52, leave out "as it has effect for the purposes of subsection (1)".

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2A to Lords Amendment No. 2.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 form part of a group of amendments designed to prevent the break-up through enfranchisement of those historic estates with exemption from inheritance tax. The original amendments were introduced at short notice and at a late stage in our consideration of the Bill. On reflection we felt that some refinement was appropriate and Commons Amendments Nos. 2A and 3A remove unnecessary words. The amendments do not alter the policy; rather they improve its application by applying all aspects of the exemption to properties where designation under previous legislation is still pending.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2A to Lords Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Strathclyde.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

3 After Clause 62, insert the following new clause:

Exclusion of right in case of property transferred

for public benefit etc

(". After section 32 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 there shall be inserted—

Property transferred for public benefit etc.

32A.—(1) A notice of a person's desire to have the freehold of a house and premises under this Part shall be of no effect if at the relevant time the whole or any part of the house and premises is qualifying property and either—

  1. (a) the tenancy was created after the commencement of Chapter III of Part 1 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993; or
  2. (b) (where the tenancy was created before that commencement) the tenant would not be entitled to have the freehold if either or both of sections 1A and 1B above were not in force.

(2) For the purposes of this section the whole or any part of the house and premises is qualifying property if—

  1. (a) it has been designated under section 31(1) (b), (c) or (d) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (designation and undertakings relating to conditionally exempt transfers), whether with or without any other property, and no chargeable event has subsequently occurred with respect to it; or
  2. (b) an application to the Board for it to be so designated is pending; or
  3. (c) it is the property of a body not established or conducted for profit and a direction has been given in relation to it under section 26 of that Act (gifts for public benefit), whether with or without any other property; or
  4. (d) an application to the Board for a direction to be so given in relation to it is pending.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above an application is pending as from the time when it is made to the Board until such time as it is either granted or refused by the Board or withdrawn by the applicant; and for this purpose an application shall not be regarded as made unless and until the applicant has submitted to the Board all such information in support of the application as is required by the Board.

(4) A notice of a person's desire to have the freehold of a house and premises under this Part shall cease to have effect if—

  1. (a) before completion of the conveyance in pursuance of the tenant's notice, the whole or any part of the house and premises becomes qualifying property; and
  2. (b) the condition set out in subsection (I) (a) or (as the case may be) subsection (1) (b) above is satisfied.

(5) Where a tenant's notice ceases to have effect by virtue of subsection (4) above—

  1. (a) section 9(4) above shall not apply to require the tenant to make any payment to the landlord in respect of costs incurred by reason of the notice; and
  2. (b) the person who applied or is applying for designation or a direction shall be liable to the tenant for all reasonable costs incurred by the tenant in connection with his claim to acquire the freehold of the house and premises.

(6) Where it is claimed that subsection (1) or (4) above applies in relation to a tenant's notice, the person making the claim shall, at the time of making it, furnish the tenant. with evidence in support of it; and if he fails to do so he shall be liable for any costs which are reasonably incurred by the tenant in consequence of the failure.

(7) In subsection (2) above as it has effect for the purposes of subsection (I) above—

  1. (a) paragraphs (a) and (b) apply to designation under section 34(1) (a), (b) or (c) of the Finance Act 1975 or section 77(1) (b), (c) or (d) of the Finance Act 1976 as they apply to designation under section 31(1) (b), (c) or (d) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984; and
  2. (b) paragraphs (c) and (d) apply to a direction under paragraph 13 of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1975 as they apply to a direction under section 26 of that Act of 1984.

(8) In this section—

The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment:

3A Line 69, leave out "as it has effect for the purposes of subsection (1) above".

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3A to Lords Amendment No. 3.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3A to Lords Amendment No. 3.—(Lord Strathclyde.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

4 After Clause 85, insert the following new clause:

Property within cathedral boundary

(". There shall be no right under Chapter I or II to acquire any interest in or lease of any property which lies within the precinct boundary of a cathedral church, within the meaning of the Cathedrals Measure 1963.")

The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment:

4A Line 3, leave out from "which" to the end of line 4 and insert "for the purposes of the Care of Cathedrals Measure 1990 is within the precinct of a cathedral church."

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4A to the Lords Amendment No. 4.

It was the will of this House at an earlier stage that property within the precinct of a cathedral church should be exempted from collective enfranchisement and lease renewal under Chapters 1 and 11 of the Bill. We decided that we did not wish to oppose that amendment on consideration in another place, but we felt that as drafted it was not entirely satisfactory. The difficulty lay with the imprecise nature of the term "precinct boundary". We foresaw disputes about whether buildings fell within the scope of the precinct and therefore were exempted. That is why we decided to modify Amendment No. 4.

We looked at a number of options when deciding how the intention of Amendment No. 4 could best be made clear. We concluded that the most satisfactory change would be to use the definition of "precinct" in the Care of Cathedrals Measure 1990. This places a duty on individual cathedral authorities to submit to the Cathedrals Fabric Commission a plan indicating the extent of the cathedral precinct. Once the plan is approved by the commission, the precinct boundary is defined. That seems to us a fair and sensible way forward.

Naturally, we have sought the views of the Church Commissioners, the General Synod and the Cathedrals Fabric Commission itself. I am pleased to say that they agree that clarification of the meaning of precinct would be helpful and agree that the solution we propose is acceptable.

I believe that the amendment made to your Lordships' amendment in another place will achieve the aim of excluding property within cathedral closes in a far more satisfactory manner than the original drafting of Amendment No. 4 would have allowed. I hope that the House will agree.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4A to Lords Amendment No. 4—(Lord Strathclyde.)

4.45 p.m.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, we are grateful that the Government have not tried to reverse a decision that was taken in this House on a Division but have tried to clean up the amendment in another place. I fully accept that the Cathedrals Measure 1963 does not define precisely the precincts of a cathedral church and that the amendment which another place has made to our amendment referring to the Care of Cathedrals Measure improves the drafting.

As the noble Lord quite rightly pointed out, under Section 13 of the Care of Cathedrals Measure it is, the duty of the administrative body of a cathedral church to prepare a plan indicating the extent of the land surrounding the cathedral church", and it must do so within two years of the 1990 measure being passed. Since that provision is now being included in a statute on leasehold reform, can the noble Lord tell the House how many cathedral church administrative bodies have defined the precincts of their cathedral in the terms of the 1990 measure? If the answer is not many, a few or a majority, then it seems that we are left with a slightly unsatisfactory situation.

Lord Monson

My Lords, as I had something to do with the carrying of the amendment which exempted property in cathedral closes from the provisions of this Bill, I should like to say that, like the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I am very pleased that the Government have accepted the amendment, subject to minor alterations. I am sure that all deans and chapters will be equally grateful, subject to the noble Lord being able to answer satisfactorily the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, subject to the answer which my noble friend will give to the very pertinent question of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, the proposal seems to me an improvement in the drafting of the Bill. It is certainly to my mind a clearer provision than was originally included. Subject to my noble friend's confirmation of the number of cathedrals which have complied with the precinct provision, this appears to be an improvement.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, I too take the opportunity to thank the Government for accepting the amendment. I was on my feet when the Lord Chairman commendably put the Question on the previous amendment, so I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Government for accepting Lords Amendment. No. 2. The Government's acceptance of that amendment has been warmly welcomed by many organisations concerned with the heritage. I believe that the Bill is better as a result.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his kind words. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked a pertinent question. The problem was that under the original amendment precincts were not defined at all. It was not a matter of their not being defined precisely. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, is right in saying that some of the 41 cathedrals in England and Wales have been tardy in submitting plans. To date 10 have yet to do so. Therefore, properties will not be exempt from collective enfranchisement or lease renewal until such time as the boundaries of any precinct are agreed by the commission.

The Church itself is well aware of the situation. I believe that it is preferable that we deal with the legislation this way round. It will be up to the cathedral authorities themselves to get their act together to produce the information which is required in order to have the protection offered under this legislation.

On Question, Motion agreed to.