HC Deb 06 February 1974 vol 868 cc1198-200
8. Mr. Clinton Davis

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement concerning the Government's policy in connection with furnished tenancies consequent upon the recommendations made in the report of the North Islington Housing Rights Project, a copy of which has been furnished to him.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Paul Channon)

I have studied this report with great care but still do not feel that it would be wise to change the Government's present policy in this field.

Mr. Davis

Is the Minister aware of the increasing amount of arbitrary eviction taking place in Hackney and Islington? Does he not recognise as a result of the research which has been done in the report that an overwhelming case has been made for providing the same degree of security of tenure for furnished tenants as for unfurnished tenants? Why are the Government so rigid in their thinking?

Mr. Channon

I take my present view not because I am rigid in my thinking but because I believe genuinely that the adoption of the policy that the hon. Gentleman wishes to see followed would in the long term lead to more homeless-ness than would the present policy.

Mr. George Cunningham

When will the Minister recognise that the only result of not having security for furnished tenants is to reduce the amount of accommodation available for renting, because by this means tenants are got out and houses are sold for owner-occupation?

Mr. Channon

I do not think the figures bear that out. The stock of furnished letting in London, according to my figures—these have to be estimates because no one can be exactly sure—is increasing at the current rate of 4 per cent. a year. They would certainly fall into a decline if full security of tenure were given to furnished tenants.

Mr. Wiggin

Is my hon. Friend aware that the letting of furnished accommodation is not as profitable or as easy an occupation as some Opposition Members would have the House believe? My hon. Friend's conclusions are quite right. Many hundreds of thousands of properties would be withdrawn from the letting market altogether if security of tenure were given.

Mr. Channon

That remains my view, especially since the report to which the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) referred advocates full security for tenants of owner-occupiers as well as those of absentee landlords. The effect of that would surely be to lead to a decline in the number of unfurnished lettings available.

Mr. Freeson

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the figures which he quoted in reply to a previous supplementary question are very questionable and that the increase of furnished accommodation in the inner London area has been at the expense of unfurnished rented accommodation? Is he aware also that every bit of research and every report produced by local authorities and independent bodies in recent years following upon the Francis Committee's negative view support the introduction of security of tenure for furnished tenants, and that if he does not take action on this soon he will face disastrous consequences in inner London?

Mr. Channon

Whenever a report is produced which the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) does not like, he calls it "negative". When he likes a report, he calls it "positive". It remains the fact that there has been a decline in unfurnished tenancies and an increase in furnished tenancies. Surely the implications of that are clear. Like those who have the responsibility for dealing with this matter, I believe that there is a real risk that if we tamper with the market we shall make the problems of housing in inner London much worse.