---

Leaseholders' Rights Bill

I sometimes wish that the ingenuity that goes into dreaming up these spurious charges was applied to working with leaseholders to ensure that they got a better service. I share the hon. Gentleman's horror and disgust at such behaviour. If this debate—let alone the Bill—does nothing else but draw RSLs' attention to the bad behaviour that they show to the people who live on their estates, we will at least have achieved something, if not much else. I recognise that it can be difficult, particularly when there is mixed tenure, for RSLs to bring in the kind of thinking and techniques required to work with public sector leaseholders. However, given my illustrations of how badly managed so many contracts are, the RSLs could probably save themselves a huge amount of money by employing properly managed contractors and taking on board the arguments and points put to them by their leaseholders. I have spent half an hour talking about clause 1. Clause 2 is much shorter, and it basically encourages the Government to consult on policies that affect leaseholders before they promulgate them. After all, this Government have said that they wish to consult, and they produce endless consultation documents. Many of their policies affect leaseholders, yet the basic rules of consultation do not appear to have been observed for them. A document called the Sedley rules—which I confess I had not come across before—sets out four requirements for lawful consultation. The first is that""consultation must be at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage."" This means that a decision maker cannot wait until they have identified a definite solution. They must embark on the consultation process while being prepared to change course if persuaded to do so. They cannot make a decision in principle and then consult. Nor can they start by excluding an option and then denying any real opportunity to present a case on it. The second is that""the proposer must give sufficient reasons for any proposal to permit of intelligent consideration and response."" The reasons given should be the true reasons. Consultees should be told the criteria that are intended to be adopted. The third is that""adequate time must be given for consideration and response."" The fourth is that""the product of the consultation must be conscientiously taken into account in finalising any statutory proposals."" I was interested to find out what had happened to the Tenant Services Authority, because I was pointed towards the issue by my very good consultees, who asked me to table a parliamentary question. I did so, and I do not declare any interest whatever; I did it because I am interested in the subject. My concern was that the Tenant Services Authority had no responsibility whatever toward public sector leaseholders, so I tabled a question and the reply was:""The Tenant Services Authority has no responsibilities in respect of leaseholders who own 100 per cent. of the interest in their homes. Leaseholders already have access to a wide range of protections and rights."" We wish! It continued:""The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 limits the Tenant Services Authority's future regulatory remit to 'social housing', which includes low cost rental and low cost home ownership accommodation"—[Official Report, 25 March 2009; Vol. 490, c. 492W.]" under the Act. Quite apart from anything else, that clearly means that public sector leaseholders were not consulted on that legislation. Their rights are not only ignored by the RSLs; they are being overridden by Government—not, I am sure, in any way malignly, but through just not thinking. That is why clause 2, which I also took from the earlier Bill of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey, is an important part of the Bill. If we are dealing with a group of people who find themselves in a position of almost exclusion, the best thing we can do to help them become part of the wider community is to ensure that they are consulted and involved at all levels. Public sector leaseholders, as I hope I have made very clear over the last half hour, have huge disadvantages in their dealings with their landlords. My Bill does not sort the whole problem out; I make no claim for that, as a much bigger legislative job would be necessary. Nevertheless, by giving those leaseholders the right to consultation, the right to receive quotes and the right to a variety of forms of paying back their bills, the Bill will take a small step to mitigate the anger and alienation they feel and their regret at becoming public sector leaseholders. I very much hope that the Government will give the Bill as fair a wind as possible at this stage of the legislative cycle—at the very least by indicating that they understand the problem and plan to do something about it.