| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I make it clear that my Question involved no criticism of the noble Lord. I am grateful to him for his courtesy and for the Answer he has now given. However, does he find it embarrassing to agree on behalf of the Government that the continued mixture of sloppiness and bad manners on the part of those who run large organisations such as Transco is greatly to be regretted? It would be a welcome change and an example if they were to determine from now on to treat the public with greater consideration and rudimentary good manners.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am not in the least embarrassed to agree, not on behalf of the Government but on behalf of the House.
Lord Peston: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the much lamented Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe. At the risk of my noble friend having a heart attack, perhaps I may ask him to accept that I now realise, having looked at the car park, that when I intervened before
on this subject I was mistaken. It seems to me that for once the authorities of the House have done something right, which is why I risked the heart attack.I do not know what message Lord Cocks is sending down to me from Heaven, but I have to confess that the car park looks more attractive and appears to be more efficient in terms of parking. I regard that as miraculous, which is why I felt I should intervene.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, no point is raised about the car park. My point relates to the delay caused by Transco's operation.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as Chief Whip, I cannot respond without referring to the fact that my noble friend voted for reference back to the sub-committee. We then recommended the scheme and the House supported it. Perhaps I may remind my noble friend of the biblical injunction that good works precede redemption.
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.--(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 1:
- Page 2, line 18, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (1A),"
The noble Lord said: It falls to me to conduct the usual brief waffle while Members remove themselves in preference to listening to this most important debate which is of wide public interest. This is the third time we have debated amendments to Part 1 of the Bill. Before the general election we had Committee stage and dealt with Part 1 on Report. We now return, for the third time, to deal with the amendments to Part 1.
However, the fact that we have already debated amendments to the Bill at some length means that it is possible to cut back on the number of amendments that are to be debated. Those which have been raised merely for the point of discussion and have been dealt with will not come back again. We, on these Benches, have cut back on the number of amendments that we have tabled to the Bill as compared to those we moved in debate on its predecessor. We raise only those issues which we regard as significant.
It is now possible for me to become more substantive. In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 191. The amendments try to deal with the problem which arises when a majority of leaseholders of an existing property wish to convert that property to commonhold but their wishes are being frustrated by a small minority of leaseholders, which for instance, may be no more than one single leaseholder in a block, however large.
At Second Reading, before the Summer Recess, it was suggested that if we were able to propose something of sufficient interest and workability, the Government might consider it. We have proposed what we believe is a workable solution to the problems, at least in part, although we believe that the problems cannot be solved altogether.
We believe that our amendments provide a way of enabling a majority of leaseholders to enfranchise where at least 80 per cent of the leaseholders of units in an existing building support the conversion to commonhold. Therefore, our proposal, if enacted, would mean that there would be a conversion to commonhold where 80 per cent of the leaseholders support that proposal and that 80 per cent already hold the freehold or can obtain it by collective enfranchisement. The key to our proposals is that the position of the existing leaseholders is, by and large, left untouched. That is important, because a majority of leaseholders should not have the right to force a minority to find the money to buy into the freehold themselves or else have to surrender the flat in exchange.
There are three different formulae in our amendments and the other amendments that are grouped with them. One is ours; one is that of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland; and one is that of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
We have some difficulty with Amendments Nos. 7, 19 and 33, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. That is because they would result in a leaseholder who, against the wishes of the majority, did not support conversion having his or her lease extinguished; and though he or she would be entitled to compensation, we do not regard that as an acceptable solution.
The Williams/Caithness amendments, if I may call them that, operate in a similar way to ours. I therefore hope that at Report stage we may be able to arrive at a joint formula, because I believe that there is very little difference between us.
However, there is one difference between our amendments and the Williams/Caithness amendments. Our Amendment No. 191 gives a leaseholder a right to buy into the commonhold at any time. In order to encourage the leaseholder to do that, we propose that the leaseholder would lose the alternative right, which he or she now enjoys, to an extended lease. We accept that that form of conversion creates some problems, because about 80 per cent of leaseholders who wish to convert will have to buy 100 per cent of the freehold, if they do not already own it. To some extent, that may make conversion on an 80 per cent majority basis more
expensive and less attractive. But we can see no way round that, without requiring the minority leaseholders to convert to commonhold against their will or lose their flats.Our amendments are relatively simple. We believe that they are workable. I do not suggest that their drafting is perfect. However, they form the basis of a workable and effective draft. In our view, they will do no harm; they will not force anyone out of his or her existing flat; they will not require anyone to pay more money without consent; and they will do good in a number of cases, particularly in the case of relatively small units--perhaps a single house containing five different flats, perhaps a small block containing between five and 10 flats. Where the great majority of leaseholders in those cases wish to convert, it will then be possible for them to do so.
Ours is not a very complicated proposal. I hope that the Government will feel able to accept it in principle. I am sure that they will wish to redraft it. I would not expect them to do so before the Bill finishes its passage through your Lordships' House, but there is no urgency to introduce it in the other place, and a delay before it moves to the other place could allow the Government time to do the necessary drafting. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for recognising that there is little difference between his amendment and that tabled by me and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
Those of us who sat through the five thrilling days of Grand Committee discussions--and I welcome new colleagues on the Front Bench, as well as old colleagues, including the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh--will recognise that there was a general feeling in that Committee, and I hope also in this Committee, that we are trying to encourage commonhold to become something other than a formula for new builds. That is the principle from which we start.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has quite rightly said that our amendment is very similar to his. I think my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor gave us a little chink of light at Second Reading that if we could find a formula that will not infringe the human rights of leaseholders who might remain under commonhold, and yet will allow a decision to go to commonhold on less than 100 per cent of the vote of leaseholders, the Government might be prepared to consider it. I submit that that would be achieved by our amendment.
I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has said. We argued many of these points in Grand Committee during the passage of the previous Bill. I apologise to my noble friends on the Government Front Bench for the fact that a number of my amendments were tabled during the Recess and were a rerun of some that we had discussed in Grand Committee. I shall therefore not speak about them at great length. Nevertheless, this particular argument is not likely to go away.
If the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and I can get together on Report--and I apologise for the noble Earl's absence; he is in the United States of America but will be back at Report stage--and find what I think my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor referred to as an all-party agreement that may satisfy this Committee and the other place, I hope that the Government will consider it. That is the intention of all those who will speak to this group of amendments. I sincerely hope that my noble friend Lady Scotland, whom I welcome to these arcane discussions, will feel able to offer us some reasonable encouragement.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page