Housing (Replacement of Terminated Tenancies) (Successor Landlords) (England) Order 2009

I welcome the order. As the Minister said, it closes a loophole that perhaps should never have existed in the first place, a point that should be put on the record. This was known about; indeed, it was raised in debate and an amendment was tabled to the Housing and Regeneration Bill—I was not a Member of your Lordships’ House at that point, but I have read the record in Hansard—so the problem was presented to the ministerial team and the Government, and they were aware of it. There was also case law to back that up; the notes point to the Court of Appeal conclusion in the Knowsley v White case about tolerated trespassers. So there is a body of evidence pointing to the dangers for the tenant in relation to the ability to succeed to the tenancy in the event of the death of that tenant, the problems faced by the landlord in relation to being able to secure rent increases that he may legitimately be entitled to, and whether this group of people would be able to have their full rights associated with assured tenancies during the period. I shall put a few questions to the Minister, who as usual has done a fantastic job of making this fairly complex legislation understandable to the non-legal minds here. I particularly appreciated the examples and case studies, which help to make these points clear. My first question relates to tolerated trespassers. Would tolerated trespassers be able to vote in stock transfer and tenant management ballots? Secondly, would these people actually know that they were tolerated trespassers? The Minister referred to some 75,000 to 80,000 people who may fall into this category. According to the record when this was debated in the other place, that figure was obtained in 2006, I think. Does she have a more up-to-date record of how many are covered by this provision? What steps are being taken to make sure that those who may be affected by it actually know of their rights and status? It seems that a number of these problems arise when there is a transfer from a registered social landlord. Perhaps some guidance towards best practice could be produced—not necessarily in legislation—setting out the process of consultation and how to ensure that people fully understand their rights and status. While this may be outside the bounds of ministerial responsibility and perhaps within the remit of the courts, the term "tolerated trespasser" seems a bit aggressive in this modern age. Is there an alternative? It has some strange connotations and could lead people to become anxious. If I was described under law as a tolerated trespasser, that would not exactly make me feel secure; in fact, I would feel that I was doing something illegal and wrong. Language is important and I wonder whether the Minister will comment on whether the term could be changed. My final point relates to the consultation. The Minister said that extensive consultation had taken place. Could she outline the nature of that consultation and the feedback that has been received? I know that some organisations, particularly Shelter, have been energetic in putting forward their concerns on this issue. It would be good to know that such organisations, where these issues are fully understood, were involved in the consultation process and that their views were taken into account. With those questions and reservations, I certainly wish to support the order, which seeks to tighten this loophole.