I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on securing the opportunity to raise important issues relating to the work of leasehold valuation tribunals. He has been assiduous in raising concerns about leasehold problems and campaigning for reform. I should reassure the House at the outset that the Government want to see thorough and effective reform, and we are determined to achieve that objective. I know that some have said that we are not moving as fast as some leaseholders would like, but the legacy of the past few attempts at leasehold reform provides, as my hon. Friend is only too well aware, a salutary reminder of the consequences of misguided and ill-considered legislation, particularly when that legislation is introduced in a hurry. It is more important to get the legislation right for the long term. We intend to publish a consultation paper on radical proposals for reforming the structure of leasehold in the near future.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised several concerns about the operation of leasehold valuation tribunals, although he did not help his case by presenting an entirely negative view of their work. His examples require careful consideration and possibly changes to the current structures, but there are many other examples in which leasehold valuation tribunals have played an important role in assisting leaseholders who otherwise would have been unable to secure justice.

Only a few months ago, my hon. Friend was pressing the Government to ensure changes to the law that would make possible the transfer of more cases from the courts to leasehold valuation tribunals, to give people easier access to swifter and cheaper justice. Therefore, while there are grounds for concern, the picture is not as bleak as my hon. Friend has painted it this evening.

Leasehold valuation tribunals were set up to provide a mechanism for resolving disputes between leaseholders and landlords. Initially, their main function was to resolve disputes over the price to be paid for acquiring the freehold of leasehold houses. Following the enactment of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, their role was extended to cover disputes over the price payable for collective enfranchisement of flats and for new leases.

The Housing Act 1996 gave tribunals a wider role from 1 September 1997. Leaseholders or landlords can apply to a tribunal for a determination of the reasonableness of charges for services, repairs, maintenance, insurance or management. That can include costs that have already been incurred and amounts payable before costs are incurred. Leaseholders who are having severe problems with the management of their building can apply to a tribunal for the appointment of a new manager. The changes were made to ensure that some of the defects in earlier legislation, such as the procedures under the 1987 legislation for the appointment of a manager, which had not proved successful, were replaced with more accessible systems.

The tribunals are independent of the Government, and are impartial. They normally consist of three members, including at least one lawyer and one surveyor or valuer. Hearings are semi-formal, and evidence is not given on oath. They are intended to provide a simpler alternative to court proceedings. Applicants do not have to be represented by a solicitor or barrister, although either party can be so represented if they wish. Most importantly, the tribunals do not have the power to award costs, so leaseholders do not face the risk of a large bill if they lose.

I shall try to address the specific points raised by my hon. Friend in turn. He started by describing the time taken to process leasehold valuation tribunal applications. We are well aware of the concerns about the time taken for cases to be determined, but that is unavoidable to an extent, given the need to ensure that both parties have an adequate opportunity to prepare their case. There is also the simple fact that, following the 1996 Act, leasehold valuation tribunals have received a substantial number of additional cases, increasing their work load.

It is too soon to draw firm conclusions about the ability of the system to cope with the additional work load that has been created as a result of the 1986 Act. We expect the time taken by tribunals to deal with cases to reduce over time. We are not in any way complacent about that; unacceptably long delays are involved in the handling of cases. The London panel is looking to streamline the procedures in the light of experience, and so speed up the process.

We are also looking to recruit more expert and lay members to tribunals in anticipation of an increasing number of applications from leaseholders. To give my hon. Friend an idea of that, I can tell him that 37 new panel members have been appointed in the past 12 months—10 of them in London. The Government are concerned that members of the panel should be more representative of all sections of the community, so we have placed particular emphasis on encouraging the recruitment of women and members of ethnic minorities. Of the 37 new recruits, 11 are women and four are from ethnic minorities.

A further possible 40 candidates for panel membership are under consideration by the panels. Advertisements have also been placed for both lawyer chairmen and valuers. Advertisements for valuers recently appeared, and we expect interviews to be held at the end of November or early in December. We also expect appointments of new lawyer chairmen to be completed by the end of November. All those measures should help to tackle the problems that my hon. Friend has described, although, as I have stressed, we are not complacent. We are monitoring the situation closely, and planning a wider review of the rent assessment panel structure, of which tribunals are part.

As my hon. Friend will appreciate, panels have two separate roles. One is in respect of rent assessment by rent officers. Panels act as review panels—appeal bodies—against rent officer decisions. Work load in that area has declined as the number of regulated tenants who are subject to a rent officer determination of fair rent has been reducing. There are complex issues to ensure that we have sufficient people to cope with the tribunals' different responsibilities. The matter will be kept under close review.

My hon. Friend referred to several cases. I cannot comment on individual cases, but I shall briefly refer to issues arising from two of the cases that he has highlighted. The first is of Rimba v. Tennyson and Stavrou. Leasehold valuation tribunals have a discretion to make an order on such terms as they consider just and equitable, restricting the right of a landlord to recover legal costs incurred through appearance at a leasehold valuation tribunal hearing, where the terms of the lease allow the landlord to do so. There is no automatic right to an order precluding any cost recovery by that means, but we shall be looking at the issue as part of our broader monitoring of the leasehold valuation tribunal regime.

My hon. Friend mentioned costs. I am not convinced that leasehold valuation tribunals are not affordable. The purpose of setting a fee was to make it possible for leaseholders to apply, but to discourage frivolous applications from, for example, people who are simply seeking to delay payments of reasonable sums. The maximum fee is £500. It is often possible for leaseholders in the same block to share the costs of a single application, thereby substantially reducing their own liability.

I accept that the level of fees may discourage some applications. We have been particularly concerned about anti-competitive insurance arrangements, where the level of fee required to take the matter to a leasehold valuation tribunal may be disproportionate to the leaseholder's potential saving. We intend to address that issue in our forthcoming consultation paper on leasehold issues.

My hon. Friend also referred to the difficulties that some lay applicants who are unrepresented may encounter when confronted with landlords represented by several lawyers, possibly including Queen's counsel. One of the objectives of the leasehold valuation tribunal regime is that proceedings should be reasonably informal, so that leaseholders can appear in person without the expense of professional representation.

We certainly expect the leasehold valuation tribunals to treat people fairly and impartially, and not to allow their judgment to be influenced in any way by the presence of legal representatives on the other side. As I have said, one reason why the transfer of cases from the courts to the leasehold valuation tribunals was favoured was to allow for more informal hearings, with less risk of leaseholders being intimidated by deep-pocketed landlords who can afford expensive legal representation. We certainly want leasehold valuation tribunals to ensure real fairness between the parties in that respect.

My hon. Friend referred to the case involving Stella Evans and Rubypoint. Again, I cannot comment on an individual case, especially as I understand that, in that case, an application for a variation of the tribunal's order has been made. However, we are aware of the broader concerns about the way in which some tribunals are handling applications for the appointment of a manager, and I can assure my hon. Friend, and the House, that we want tribunals to establish workable arrangements in what can be a confrontational situation. The issue is not straightforward, and we intend to address it in our forthcoming consultation paper.

I hope that what I have said has assured my hon. Friend and the other hon. Members here that the Government take seriously the question of equity in the relations between landlords and leaseholders. We have an ambitious programme of reform, which we shall outline in the consultation paper; in the meantime, we shall examine closely the way in which leasehold valuation tribunals discharge their responsibilities.

I entirely accept that there are some difficulties associated with the novelty of the experience for leasehold valuation tribunals taking on work in areas in which they have no previous experience, and with the volume of cases being brought to their attention.

Difficulties may occur as a result, but we are determined that the leasehold valuation tribunal system will develop so as to be able to respond sympathetically and successfully to the new challenges that it faces, and to ensure that leaseholders and landlords get swift and effective justice at a reasonable price. We shall do all we can to ensure that the tribunal system meets its intended objectives.