---

Housing and Regeneration Bill

moved Amendment No. 113: 113: Clause 293, page 124, line 19, leave out from ““ballot”” to ““; or”” in line 20 and insert ““in accordance with the code of practice set out in section (Consultation principles);”” The noble Lord said: This amendment takes us into slightly different territory, which I have raised in the House on a couple of occasions; namely, that of ballots. I am very grateful to the Government for the provision in the Bill requiring ballots in relation to stock transfer. Previously, the requirement to hold ballots was at best obscure and was followed in some cases but not others. I should have liked the ballots to be broader in scope and to cover allocation of local authority stock to an ALMO or the re-awarding of such management contracts. I welcome the provision so far as it goes. The problem with ballots is their fairness. Some basic principles of democracy are involved here. Ballots have been conducted by councils or landowners that wish to transfer their stock. They have been in charge of the propaganda in favour of a yes vote. Their staff have been used to agitate in favour of a yes vote, their publications have been distributed—in many cases several times—in favour of a yes vote and council premises have sometimes been used to present inducements in favour of a yes vote such as showing videos. Parliament has on many occasions laid down rules for the conduct of elections and referenda. They provide for equivalence of information, equivalence of status between yes and no votes or of all the candidates in an election, and non-interference and equal access to the ballot box and the list of voters. That has occurred with many—I do not say all—ballots that have operated in this regard. I and others have drawn attention to some abuses in the system, which include the imbalance of information. There have been cases in which one side is able to produce three or four glossy leaflets but the other side is refused access to the same facility. In the case that I am talking about—that of Merseyside—there was still a no vote but another ballot was held. That is reminiscent of more difficult areas of democracy. There have also been cases—I have details with me about one in County Durham—in which the side that advocated a no vote was denied access to the list of those entitled to vote until the final two or three days. There have been allegations that council officials in a voting booth wear stickers supporting a yes vote. There have also been more direct inducements and intimidation. We have an example in the Tower Hamlets case of ballot papers being for sale and acquired by the Evening Standard. That shows, as a minimum, that there is a lack of firmness about the rules; in fact, there are not many rules. I am asking through the amendment that the Government take on board the need to provide for fairness of rules here. It should be pretty obvious from my presentation that, by and large, I am not in favour of transfers out of local authority stock unless the local authority has absolutely failed in its management. I am partisan in that respect, but I recognise the need to ensure that local authorities keep up to the mark and that there is therefore the possibility of transfer out of local authority control to keep local authority management on its toes. I should say that here I am not speaking on behalf of the National Consumer Council, which is in favour of all forms of provision in whatever circumstances, but I have a prejudice that is no doubt evident in my interventions on the issue. The issue is fairness. Whatever question is put to tenants, they need to feel that it is put to them fairly, that they are not being pressurised—there are allegations in the opposite direction of intimidation and buying votes. This whole area needs some serious cleaning up. I am therefore asking the Government, if they are not prepared to accept my amendment as it stands, at least to accept the principle that where ballots on stock transfer are conducted, there will be clear rules that provide for equality, fairness and equal access to the ballot box and the electoral list. That is an absolute minimum of effective democracy. We have to bear in mind that the tenants who are asked to vote in these ballots are probably those who are least likely to vote in a general election or a local election, and this is their most direct experience of our democracy. If they find a democratic vote that is so close to their central interests being corrupted in one form or another, their belief in the democratic system as a whole suffers. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Government, having rightly included a provision for ballots in the Bill, also to provide for the way in which the ballots will be conducted. I beg to move.