HC Deb 30 July 1974 vol 878 cc720-40

Amendments made:

No. 37, in page 20, line 38, at end add—

'1972 c. 47. The Housing Finance Act 1972. In section 19, in subsections (4) and (6) the words "being a qualified person within the meaning of subsection (12) below", in subsection (8A) paragraph (b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it and subsections (12) to (14).
In section 23, in subsection (1) the words from "or to the descriptions" to the end of the subsection.
In section 24, in subsection (10) the words from "or to a person" to "would be a private tenant" and in subsection (11) the words from "or for a person" to "would be a private tenant of a dwelling".
'1973 c. 6. The Furnished Lettings (Rent Allowances) Act 1973. In Schedule 1, paragraphs 10 and 12.'—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Title

Amendment made: No. 41, in line 2, after '1971' insert— 'and the provisions of Part II of the Housing Finance Act 1972 and of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972 relating to rent allowances'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Bill be now read the Third time.

2.50 a.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams (Kensington)

It is a deplorable custom of the House, but a growing one, not to have a Third Reading debate on controversial Bills such as this. In recent years Parliament has been much weakened by hon. Members not exercising their rights, and this decay has gone much faster in the past few months.

The Bill might be called a charter for property-occupying democrats. I accept that once it was introduced it was necessary for it to be hastened through. However, I feel that it will leave behind real problems—more than it solves. I accept that it solves certain problems. It will be good for existing tenants, but not so good for the landlords, in some cases, or for people who hope to become tenants in the future. As it leaves the House it has the defect that was noted on Second Reading that it will tend to dry up rapidly the supply of accommodation.

I think that it was good to do away with the increasingly artificial distinction between furnished and unfurnished accommodation, but the effect of the Bill will be to reduce the total amount of extant housing available for rent. It will reduce the level of occupancy of a large amount of extant property, and hence prolong the overcrowding of the rest.

There is nothing in the Bill that will add to the supply of new houses. It does nothing to increase the supply of new accommodation but it will serve to ossify the market.

Therefore, although the Bill should be passed, the House will have to attend to housing matters again urgently afterwards, because there is still so much to be done.

I shall now say something with which the Ministers perhaps will not agree, which is that they have more to learn about housing than they realise. They will learn it in the end, but I regret that it will only be at the public's expense.

2.52 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Latham (Paddington)

I want to express on behalf of my constituents their appreciation to the Government for this measure, and my appreciation to colleagues who served on the Committee, who endured a long and arduous session, particularly on one occasion. I sampled for only a brief time what they had to endure and had to leave the room. I am most grateful to them for their forbearance in seeing that the Bill reached the statute book.

I agree with the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) that the Bill will need improvement in the not-too-distant future, but rather than improving it from his point of view I believe that there are other difficulties about some of the exemptions which may be a bit too broad and lead to possible abuses.

The bald fact is that about 250,000 furnished tenants in London will now, for the first time in years, be able to exercise their rights with regard to health inspectors and rent tribunals. Sadly, like many other hon. Members, I have often had to tell my constituents that it was inadvisable for them to exercise their other rights as furnished tenants, because the consequences might be that they would gain an immediate remedy to the problem but within about three months find themselves without a roof over their heads. The Bill removes that position for four-fifths of the furnished tenants in London. I am grateful on behalf of my constituents.

2.54 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page

I cannot resist the temptation of the opportunity given by Third Reading to put on record again that the Bill will reduce the amount of property available for letting. To that extent it will increase stress in the areas that are already subject to stress. Therefore, the Bill will be of no real, lasting value to tenants.

Too many of our amendments for relieving that difficulty failed to find their way into the Bill. The Government introduced this difficult Bill at a very late stage in the Session, when there was not time to consider it fully, and endeavoured to excuse themselves for doing that by deciding even before the debates in Committee started that they would use the excuse of the Opposition's filibustering on the Bill. I hope that, looking at the amendments which have been achieved by the Opposition, the Government are a little ashamed of that party manoeuvre.

The Opposition, in serious, constructive debate, achieved a score of amendments; some have appeared today on the undertaking of the Government; others were made in Committee. The Government produced 30 amendments on Report. But it is not a good Bill, and its proceedings have not been rapid, because the Government started off by accusing the Opposition of not treating it properly. Nevertheless, we have made improvements to it, and I hope that to some extent it will be possible to administer it to the benefit of both landlord and tenant.

2.56 a.m.

Mr. Emery

I agree that the Bill will decrease the amount of property available for rent, whatever benefits it may, in certain circumstances, give to tenants in stress areas. The Government have forgotten that in other areas, particularly the South-West, the security now given to tenants will dry up the supply of rented property, where there is already a shortage.

I hoped to be on the Committee. I was put on it but discharged within the hour. But I have read its proceedings. The Government have not taken seriously the effect the Bill will have on certain country districts. I do not believe that they fully understand the situation.

I put a marker on the Bill. In areas like the South-West it will have an adverse effect, in that many people who want furnished accommodation to rent will not be able to get it. The Bill has a great deal about it that is ill-conceived and wrong. I am sorry to see much of it going on the statute book.

2.57 a.m.

Mr. Sainsbury

I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends about the consequences of the Bill. The Minister has said that the biggest single cause of homelessness is insecurity of tenure in the furnished sector. This is readily identifiable as an incomplete analysis. The biggest single cause of homelessness is lack of accommodation.

I have been accused by the Minister on other occasions of making the same speech several times. Perhaps he makes that accusation because he does not relish hearing again the reminder of this point that my hon. Friends and I have repeated. The biggest single cause of homelessness, almost by definition must be lack of accommodation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful to Labour Members for their agreement, because their agreement shows that they recognise the foolishness of what the Bill achieves by still further reducing the availability of accommodation.

This is accommodation that meets a wide variety of needs. During our debates, hon. Members have mentioned the many categories of those who seek accommodation of the kind most affected by the Bill—professional people, young persons, single person households, people retiring away from where they have been living, students, holiday makers, and so on. All these categories, about whom we should surely be concerned, are affected in various ways. The common factor of the ways in which the Bill affects them is the reduction in the amount of accommodation available, and that is the biggest single cause of homelessness.

The Minister has said that there is nothing in the Bill to compel people to stay in their present accommodation, and I agree with him to the extent that we are not requiring people not to move; but in so far as the Bill reduces the availability of the accommodation that people require, it will compel them to stay in their present accommodation, because they cannot move unless they can find alternative accommodation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) reminds me, not one new furnished dwelling house, the type of accommodation that meets the widest variety of needs—

Mr. Robin F. Cook (Edinburgh, Central)

Will the hon. Member give me one instance from his own constituency or elsewhere during the past five years when a house has been purpose built and constructed for letting by a private landlord?

Mr. Sainsbury

I think that the hon. Member is suggesting that the Bill will not have the effect of driving the private landlord out of the market. I have numerous examples from my own constituency and there are others from elsewhere. I have here one letter—it is not well written for it is not from a very rich or privileged landlord—saying— I would like to invite you with one such problem to inspect my basement flat that needs £3,500 to make it liveable for someone to live in it. Here were we with a statutory tenant bought with the sale of the house. Her rent for 10 years was old money £1 10s. a week including the rates. So the letter goes on. That is a clear example of the sort of problem that we are up against.

I have a list of the sort of people who advertised in one newspaper on one day seeking the sort of accommodation the supply of which will be adversely affected by the Bill: Lecturer and wife (no children) urgently require"— furnished accommodation. Married lecturer, no children, requires small furnished flat … Young married professional couple seek self-contained … furnished flat … Furnished flat required for journalist …. Perhaps that will strike a chord on the Government Front Bench. Two final year student nurses require furnished fiat. Five professional people require 3–4-bedroomed house … Two young ladies require 2-bedroomed furnished flat. I am delighted that they require a two-bedroomed flat. Lady teacher … seeks shared accommodation …. Accommodation for three lady teachers … Single lady urgently requires flat …". One could go on. A large variety of people require the range of furnished accommodation the supply of which will be affected by the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)

I have been fascinated to listen to the hon. Member and the three preceding speakers. I think that Members on the Conservative side of the House are so used to being either in government or in opposition—[Interruption.] That is the whole point. They have not quite understood this Parliament. I have been listening with fascination to the discussion. According to the last four speakers, the Bill is wholly evil. Can the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) tell me why Members on his side are allowing it to pass?

Mr. Sainsbury

I must confess that my limited experience of the House is that I have been either on the Government side or on the Opposition side.

Mr. English

Not in this Parliament.

Mr. Sainsbury

I should be enlightened if the hon. Member could tell me where else I could find myself than on one or other of those two sets of benches. If one is privileged to be here, one happens to be either in government or in opposition.

Mr. English

Not in this Parliament.

Mr. Sainsbury

In this Parliament, perhaps, we are reminded that we are all minorities. If, indeed, we are all minorities, surely it is all the more important that we do not, for doctrinaire or dogmatic reasons, introduce measures that will adversely affect a large number of people, and many of those who will be most adversely affected are the people in the community who are perhaps more in need of help than many others.

Everything that we have heard in the fairly lengthy discussions both upstairs in Committee and here in the House tends to reinforce my opinion that the Bill will have entirely undesirable effects. The most charitable view I can take of the Government's position is that they have not appreciated the consequences of their own legislation.

I should like to place on record my opinion that the Bill will result in accommodation that might otherwise be available for letting not being so available—in some cases being kept empty—and those who seek that accommodation becoming homeless in some cases because the accommodation is not available and in other cases being unable to move to the accommodation they want, where they want it, because there is nothing to meet their needs.

I hope that there will be an early opportunity not only to put into good, simple order the complicated provisions of this rushed legislation but to correct some of the damage that it will do to the supply of accommodation, particularly furnished accommodation.

3.9 a.m.

Mr. Rees-Davies

I want to be brief because we have already spoken at very great length—certainly I have done so—on the Bill. I believe that it provides a charter for the furnished tenant. I believe that it will do some good in the stress areas that one or two hon. Gentlemen on the Government side, and one or two on this side of the House also, have to look after.

In some of the constituencies it will deal with the case of the furnished tenant who, rightly, regards his tenancy as his home. Where it is his home he is entitled to some security of tenure. It is in those circumstances that the Government have a valid point. That does not answer the real case. The true case is that the Bill goes much wider than was necessary to achieve its purpose. It takes in an enormous area which the Government did not need to grab and control. In that respect it will do a great deal of harm and damage and it will be a charter not only for the furnished tenant but for homelessness.

It will not only dry up other accommodation; it will mean that we will have to introduce amending legislation in a short space of time to cure the evil effects that the Bill will create. As a lawyer, I do not believe that this is the way to conduct our legislation. I do not believe that the Government could not have introduced the Bill somewhat earlier.

As usual, the Liberal Party has gone home. There is not one member of that party with us, not even that darling Cinderella, the Liberal Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler), who went home at midnight on the first night that we discussed the matter in Committee. The sole representative of the Liberal Party has gone home tonight. This is typical of the lack of interest which they show in a measure of this kind.

It is sad that we should have to debate an important measure—I say this in a non-party sense, because I would have said the same if my party had done it in Government—in a way which compels us, and I think that is the right word, to assist the Government to get this measure. Once the Conservative Party decided not to vote against Second Reading those of us who found it difficult to support the Bill felt it our duty, as loyal members of the party, to give careful consideration throughout a great many hours in Committee, to the details of the Bill. Certainly no one can charge my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), who led us brilliantly in Committee for many long hours, with filibustering or saying a single word which was not uttered in an attempt to improve the measure.

No one has said it in my instance and they could not. I am not so long-winded and I did not want to be unduly long when dealing with the many amendments which we moved to try to improve the Bill. In so doing I believe that we have been able to improve it. There is no doubt about that. At the same time, we have not had a fair deal. It is not fair to ask the House of Commons to deal with a measure which came suddenly out of the Lords, went into Committee on a Tuesday and, then, on Thursday of the same week had a Committee sitting from 10.30 am until 1 o'clock the next afternoon. It is not fair upon the officials who have to guide and advise the Ministers. These officials are able men and women, who have to try to provide the answers.

I noted time and again that the Minister had to rely upon virtually reading from briefs given to him with great speed and efficiency by his officials. I do not criticise him for that. I saw that he was almost out on his feet. Any human being working for that number of hours does not do himself much good. I have a lot of stamina, as I am sure has the Minister, but I am sure that no Minister would have been at his best after all those hours and without support from his own side, because his colleagues were gagged and not allowed to say a word.

I do not regard that as democracy. It is a bad example in itself—and is certainly a bad example in terms of the way to deal with legislation. I do not think we will be proud of this Measure. We know that it will need to be amended by whichever Government have to deal with it, whether Labour or Conservative. The Bill has almost every bad feature one can name.

Let me name one or two. First, I do not believe in legislation governed by reference. It is too difficult for people to understand. It is wrong to govern by legislation which refers back to a 1968 Act—

Mr. Graham Page

And to 1920.

Mr. Rees-Davies

Yes, as far back as 1920. Now we find ourselves discussing the Bill at 3 o'clock in the morning. This debate will go on record and I shall make it my business to draw it to the notice of the nation. It is intolerable that we should be asked to stay up for 28 hours of debate to try to enable the measure to reach the statute book.

I do not believe that government by reference to earlier Acts is right. We should make legislation in rent matters legislation which people can understand. It is unfair to landlord and tenant that the Government have now got to put out an explanatory memorandum to try to explain the purposes of the legislation. This is not the way to introduce important legislation which tenants and landlords must try to understand.

It is no good saying that the Government will get the case across in the month of August. Everybody is away then, and nobody will question it. It will be almost impossible for this to be appreciated, because we have strikes in this House. We are not able to see a copy of a Bill which is readable. Even then people will not be able to understand it, because it refers to the recent Act of 1968. Unless one has a copy of the Act and the capacity of being an excellent lawyer, one cannot possibly understand it. The whole thing is a deplorable mess.

Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury)

Not unusual!

Mr. Rees-Davies

It is unusual and it is not something to which the House of Commons should lend its name. It is a form of misconduct of democracy, and when we think today that we are trying to uphold democracy, trying to introduce measures which we believe are in accordance with sound principle, this is a negation of the principles for which this House of Commons stands. I have said much the same against my own party at times, and anyone who knows me will know that. I do not think that this is right.

This measure went upstairs into Committee and had this bulldozing operation. If we had spent last week sitting right through the night, which we could have done—we have the stamina—my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and others would have been prepared to go through another whole night if necessary. But that would have achieved nothing. All that would have happened is that the Government would have said that we were filibustering the Bill. It would not have been true. Because of its many failings, we could debate this measure for a great number of hours. My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, who has enormous experience of these matters, reckoned that in ordinary debate this Bill was good for at least 20 to 25 sittings. In the ordinary way, we would have had four sittings a week. The Bill would have taken five to six weeks in Standing Committee.

At the end of that time, we would have produced a measure which this House, whether or not we philosophically disagreed with it, would have regarded as a sound measure to go on the statute book. But in the way in which it went, this is not a measure which is satisfactory.

I give two examples. First, it is intolerable that the Bill should go back to another place tomorrow in the form in which it is. Baroness Young, in another place, secured a situation for students. Government supporters may not agree with it, and they did not. The other place was concerned to ensure that the student situation should be clarified. It was concerned to ensure that by October the students would be able to have accommodation. It was very concerned to ensure that the institutions and the landladies with the digs would be available to provide it. It passed some amendments. They were bulldozed upstairs. It is true that in response to a speech of mine the Minister indicated an intention to introduce a form of registration. I am sure that he had thought of it beforehand himself. He said that the Government believed that there should be a form of registration for student accommodation. But what is the situation? There will be no production of this registration until, probably, November, December or January.

Why is it that the Government want to bulldoze through this measure? The one reason is that they want to introduce retrospective legislation. They want to do something which is very naughty. They know that it is naughty. How would anyone like to find himself in a situation where he had entered into a viable contract with someone to let him accommodation for six months, only to find that the Labour Government had suddenly introduced legislation which had been rushed through in a matter of weeks and which trapped the person concerned so that he found himelf subject to an Act which he never thought for a moment would affect him?

There are a large number of landlords, I am sure, who will want to go on letting accommodation professionally to tenants. It may be that many more will withdraw accommodation from the market. It was wholly unfair to force though this measure at short notice, so that landlords who happen to have furnished accommodation at the moment, the tenancies of which are running out in September and October, find themselves, against their will, in a situation in which their tenants are able to remain in control. This may mean that their whole lives and livelihoods are affected.

For example, somebody who let a furnished tenancy for six months from May to October will now find himself in a position in which the tenant can remain, yet he had no forewarning that he would be faced with that situation. He may have made arrangements for his daughter, who is getting married next year to have that accommodation. I agree that he is not an owner-occupier. He is what is regarded by hon. Gentlemen opposite as something quite wrong—an absentee landlord. But every landlord is an absentee. There is no such category as a landlord who lives on the premises. If a man lives in the premises he is an owner-occupier. Such people will now be trapped against their will. They will be unable to get back their properties which they may have purchased for good reason knowing that they would be able to use them for members of their households.

The Bill is a disgrace to our nation. It is absolutely scandalous. It is wrong and contrary to democracy to bring to this House a measure and to bulldoze it through because we on this side of the House believe that we should assist hon. Gentlemen opposite by relieving stress areas. I recognise that they have a good argument regarding the stress areas.

I understand the views of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson)—to refer to him in another light—and the problems that he has in his constituency. I understand the problems of Paddington and North Kensington. I have spent my working life with a knowledge of the law of landlord and tenant. That is why I served on the Committee on the Bill. However, it is not right that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite should have used or misused the House of Commons in the way that they have.

I shall continue to attack the Labour Party throughout the country in the months ahead on a very simple principle—that whilst it is proper to introduce a measure to control furnished tenancies because it is thought to be right, it is not right to do it behind the backs of landlords and to giggle about it, as many hon. Gentlemen have, as if it is funny to put them into a position which means that in the end they cannot get out of the obligations into which they have entered.

That is why I feel strongly about the Bill. That is why I would have voted against it. I am prepared to go on the record as saying that I would have done so, but not because I am against doing something for people in the twilight areas. I would never do that. Indeed, I was one of the famous Margate mutineers who, with Dame Irene Ward, when she was a Member of this House, took 40 Tory Members into the Lobby against Henry Brooke's Act. Let that not be forgotten. I did not believe in the decontrol that the then Tory Government were introducing—I do not believe that we cannot apply control—but I profoundly believe that professional people are entitled to accommodation.

I think that it is right that young men and women should be given the opportunity of obtaining homes. I am prepared to accept controls where they are necessary. However, I am not prepared to support the way that this measure has been introduced. I think that it is wrong. I do not think that it is in accordance with the principles of this House. That is why I am sorry the Government have handled the Bill in the way they have.

3.30 a.m.

Mr. Robin F. Cook

I wish to speak only briefly. I am urged to do so because there have been references to what happened in Committee upstairs, and it is appropriate for someone who was on that Committee to say something about it.

I had to exercise a policy of restraint in what I said in Committee, because if my colleagues and I had not done so we should not have had the Bill before us at this stage or in this Session of Parliament and we should have lost the measure. It is unfair for the Opposition to claim total credit for having probed, tested and improved the Bill, when they know that because of the amount of time that they took to do that they denied Government back benchers the opportunity to probe, test and improve the Bill.

It is also unfair for the Opposition to blame the Government side for having kept the Committee sitting for 27 hours, because there can be no doubt that four or five Opposition Members contributed 21 hours of debate. The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) may think that he is not given to being long-winded, but I recall about four occasions on which he spoke for more than half an hour on a few different points.

I am sorry that the Bill was introduced so late in the present stage of Parliament. I should have liked to see it brought in earlier, but it is preposterous to suggest that such a modest measure as this ought to be in Committee for five or six weeks—longer than it takes to get the Finance Bill through its Committee stage.

There is another thing that undermines the whole case now being made by the Opposition, and that is that so many of the speeches in Committee revolved round one argument that was put to us again and again and added to with a few rhetorical flourishes and hard cases in the different constituencies. The argument was that the Bill would dry up the supply of furnished rented accommodation.

Mr. Sainsbury

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that there were many occasions in Committee when it became apparent that there were points of law that needed clarification, there were references back that were not clear and there were general drafting difficulties—not errors—that needed to be cleared up? I think the hon. Gentleman will recognise, if he looks at the fairly thick wad of paper on which the Committee proceedings are recorded, that there were many occasions on which these matters were rightly dealt with.

Mr. Cook

My hon. Friends will be able to measure the length of some of the speeches of the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) by extrapolating the length of interventions in the speeches of other Members.

Nobody takes objection to reasonable Committee points about drafting or legal issues, but repeatedly we saw such points used as a peg on which to hang what were essentially Second Reading speeches.

A myth is growing up that there is a vast increase in the supply of furnished rented accommodation. It is a myth because, if I may pose a rhetorical question, where is the increased supply coming from? Is it coming from the owner-occupied sector? Do we see owner-occupied houses being turned over to private lettings? The answer is "No". Do we see it coming from new constructions? Do we see any houses being purpose-built for private letting? The answer again is "No".

The only reason for an increase in private furnished lettings in recent years is that there has been a flight from unfurnished private lettings to evade the provisions of security created in the 1965 Act and consolidated in the 1968 Act. I made the point on Second Reading, and I am sorry that it was not grasped then by the Opposition. There is no net increase in the privately rented sector. All that we see within that sector is a transference of unfurnished to furnished in order to evade the provisions for security that were put into the 1968 Act. All that we are seeking to do in the Bill is to restore those provisions for security. The privately rented sector has been in decline for some time—going well back to the First World War, and for very valid reasons.

I have two comments to make to the Opposition. First, if it is true that it is the Bill which will dry up the supply, why do so many of us see in our constituences private furnished dwellings being emptied of their tenants and put on the market for sale? Why has this been going on for months? If one goes back to the 1957 Act, which abolished security for many properties, one finds that that was followed by a very sharp reduction in the amount of property for privately rented accommodation.

Finally, there is another myth being created by the Opposition. It is that we have, through the Bill, sought to freeze all tenants in a position of permanent security in all privately furnished dwellings. Of course that is not so. The Bill will still provide for the landlord who has a reason to evict his tenant the opportunity to do so. If the tenant is abusing the property, for instance, the landlord will still be able to get an eviction. What the Bill does is to prohibit the landlord from evicting the tenant on a whim, or because he thinks that he will be able to obtain a tenant who will pay a higher rent, or if the tenant merely exercises his right to go to the rent tribunal—which evictions are sadly and regularly the case.

The Bill will also prevent the case of the landlord who is liable to evict couples without children who reply to an advertisement for couples without children, and who have been unable to find a house and have brought with them children in the fullness of time.

It is a matter of regret that it has taken quite so long and so many hours of debate in order to get this point across.

3.37 a.m.

Mr. Douglas-Mann

Out of concern for my colleagues, but not out of any lack of stamina, I should like to make only a few comments.

This Bill is the most important measure of social justice which this Parliament has introduced. It is infinitely important to the limited number of people affected by it. The criticisms of the Bill from the Opposition are criticisms which I believe are not genuinely sustained. They are criticisms based on points of detail and legalistic points which are not genuine. There are defects in the Bill, and it still contains loopholes. But this measure should have been introduced by the previous Labour Government. I very much regret that it was not, but I am delighted that it has been introduced by the present Government.

3.38 a.m.

Mrs. Thatcher

The hour is late, so I shall be brief.

The Bill came before the House for its Second Reading only three weeks and one day ago. It was a rushed Bill and now bears all the hallmarks of a rushed measure. It would have been far better if my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) and the Opposition team had had much more time properly to scrutinise the Bill. We should then not have needed now to be talking, on both sides of the House, of producing amendments to the Bill in the next Session. Both sides of the House and the Minister have already made such references.

I reject the assertion of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) that the points that we have made are legalistic. They are not. They frequently come from human cases where the landlord has a right to regain possession of his property in certain circumstances. They are circumstances in which, if they occur, Labour hon. Members and Ministers would wish to regain possession of their property and attempt to do so. These are human points and human cases. Tomorrow there will be the general batch of letters raising a lot more cases and suggesting many more amendments. The difference between us is that hon. Members opposite do not recognise that a landlord has equity and the right to a reasonable solution to his problems. If they did recognise that, they would acknowledge the need for amendments of the type we tabled.

Again on the question of the effect on the suply of accommodation there is a fundamental difference between the two sides. The Government side believe that all the needs of the rented sector should be met by the public sector only. We reject that contention. We believe that there is a place in our society for the good private landlord and, further, that those who seek accommodaton would benefit from the provision which the private landlord could and would make if he had the incentive.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) will remember that on Second Reading I gave details of the case of a constituent of mine who had converted his home to a number of flats and in the end had to sell the property because the rent he was allowed to charge was not sufficient to service the loan. That was the case of someone who would have provided accommodation if he could have obtained a reasonable return and possession.

I am tempted to continue but will not do so. I have made our position clear. We hope in due course to pass the requisite amendments ourselves.

3.42 a.m.

Mr. Freeson

Tory Members contend that the need for rented accommodation can be met by the private landlord. They had 16 years out of the last 23 years in government. In that time there was a steady decrease in the provision of private rented accommodation, mostly under their Government. Nothing that was done throughout most of those years was able to increase the provision along the lines they say is possible.

The contention of the Tories is nonsense. Any expert in housing knows this and can prove it, and knows that there has been a steady and continuing decline for generations. There is no indication of any change in that situation. All we have had is a series of rhetorical speeches from the Tories over many years which have produced no results.

We inherited the most disastrous situation in the provision of rented accommodation that any Government have inherited for generations. It was the inheritance we got from the Tory Government, who produced the worst slump in house-building the country had seen in 40 years. We have been in office for five and a half months. We inherited a programme of 60,000 to 70,000 starts in the rented sector. I am prepared to bet that by the end of this year we will nearly double that figure. The private sector has been slumping under every Government, and under the Tories most of all.

The Tories have made noises tonight about not wishing to oppose the Bill. I can only say that we welcomed the sea change that occurred after the marathon Standing Committee sitting which lasted about 28 hours. The stories we heard from Tory Members tonight about what they did in the initial stages in Standing Committee were humbug. Up until the marathon, most of what went on in Committee was filibuster.

Mr. Graham Page

How can the Minister justify that?

Mr. Freeson

Do I have the floor, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Graham Page

It is absolutely unjustifiable.

Mr. Freeson

It is interesting to see how sensitive hon. Members opposite are.

Mr. Graham Page

Of course. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we did not filibuster. Did the Chairman of the Committee ever call us to order?

Mr. Freeson

It is all right for hon. Members opposite to hand it out, but they do not like receiving it. We have had more humbug from the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) tonight than we had in the whole of the Committee proceedings.

Mr. Rees-Davies rose—

Mr. Freeson

I have sat through a series of speeches tonight during the Report stage and Third Reading—

Mr. Graham Page

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to refer to the Members of the Opposition as having filibustered in Committee when not once did the Chairman ever accuse us of filibustering or call us to order for tedious repetition or anything of the sort?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)

That is hardly a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Freeson

I have made my point. I do not intend to repeat it.

Mr. Graham Page

Absolutely disgraceful!

Mr. Freeson

I am glad to see that the consciences of hon. Members opposite are pricked a little by my remarks.

I now turn to the last point that I wish to make on this Bill.

Mr. Graham Page

Thank goodness.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams

The Minister is not improving the Bill.

Mr. Graham Page

Nor is he improving himself.

Mr. Freeson

I think we are getting a lot of silly, rude, arrogant interruptions.

Mr. Rees-Davies

The Minister is so damned arrogant.

Mr. Freeson

It is interesting to see the reactions of hon. Members opposite. We have had none of this come-back until now. Now we are giving what we have been receiving.

I wish to make one last point about this Bill, and it covers two aspects. One is that there is no evidence whatsoever that this kind of legislation has any effect on the rate of loss of rented accommodation from the housing market. There has been no experience to indicate this in the past. All the assertions to the contrary do not prove the point. The history of housing loss in the rented field supports the opposite view—not the view that has been expressed by hon. Members opposite.

This leads me to my last point. We have been waiting for a long time to give justice to the furnished tenants. We are proud to have taken the opportunity to introduce this Bill and to have seen it through the Committee and other stages. It will be welcome. It is an act of social justice for which hundreds of thousands of families have been waiting for far too long.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.