§ Mr. RifkindI beg to move amendment No. 194, in page 49, line 21, leave out ' has ' and insert ' and his spouse have'.
§ Mr. RifkindThese amendments meet a point that was raised with some useful discussion in Committee. Amendment No. 194 will allow the landlord to act at once without waiting six months if he has reason to believe that the tenant is no longer using the house as his principal home. This was clearly a point of concern to the Committee.
§ Amendment No. 195 provides a desirable protection for spouses, which was missing in the original drafting, by providing that the landlord cannot seek possession under paragraph 5 while the tenant's husband or wife is living in the house, regardless of the tenant's absence. This is consistent with the general attitude towards the protection of the rights of resident spouses elsewhere in the Bill.
§ I commend the amendments to the House.
§ Amendment Agreed to.
§
Amendment made : No. 195, in page 49, line 22 at end add
'or have ceased to occupy the dwelling-house as their principal home.'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]
§ Mr. RifkindI beg to move amendment No. 196, in page 49, line 22, at end add—
'(5A) The landlord wishes to transfer the secure tenancy of the dwelling house to the spouse or former spouse of the tenant, or to a person with whom the tenant has been living as man and wife, where either the tenant or the spouse, former spouse or person aforesaid no longer wishes to live together with the other in the dwelling house, and the spouse, former spouse or person aforesaid has applied to the landlord for the transfer of the tenancy.'.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerIt will be convenient to take also amendment No. 204, in page 49, line 35, at end insert—
'8A. The landlord requires the dwelling-house for occupation by the spouse, former spouse, or cohabitee who was resident or ordinarily resident with the tenant in the dwelling house.'.
§ Mr. RifkindOur amendment and Opposition amendment No. 204 seek to create a new ground for possession to enable authorities to deal with the problems posed by marital breakdown, in much the same way as they do now, by transferring the tenancy from one spouse to the other. They may do so if they believe that the spouse who is not the tenant 745 should have the right to stay in the marital home.
This matter was raised in Committee by my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) and for South Angus (Mr. Fraser) and by the hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). I undertook to bring forward proposals at this stage. I emphasise that they are interim proposals, pending the final conclusion of the Scottish Law Commission, which is dealing with this issue.
The only difference between the Government amendment and the Opposition amendment is that the Opposition amendment would place an absolute obligation on the local authority to provide alternative accommodation. For the reasons that I gave in Committee, I do not feel that it is appropriate to impose such a statutory obligation at this stage. How-over, when the Scottish Law Commission brings forward its final recommendations, we shall consider them carefully. If further changes are required, an opportunity will be provided to make them.
§ Mr. George RobertsonThis is not the time for a major debate. However, hon. Members on both sides of the House consider that the issue is important. Amendment No. 204 arises from the fact that this issue was discussed in Committee by the hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) and for South Angus (Mr. Fraser). Those hon. Members are not here, and have not been in the Chamber for most of the day.
§ Mr. Gordon WilsonOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am here, and have been for most of the day.
§ Mr. RobertsonI apologise profusely. The absentees are Conservative Members. Both the hon. Member for South Angus and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South are absent.
There is a substantial difference between the two amendments. The Ministers' hon. Friends supported one of those amendments in Committee. The Minister said that he was putting forward interim proposals and that we should be able to discuss at a later stage the general issues that gave rise to concern in Committee.
§ Mr. Gordon WilsonI should like to thank the Minister for fulfilling the undertaking that he gave in Committee to bring forward an amendment to deal with the problem. However, I am disappointed that he has rephrased the amendment and changed its position in schedule 2. If the amendment had been included in paragraphs 7 to 12, local authorities would have been obliged to provide other suitable accommodation and to make that accommodation available to the tenant who had been dispossessed of the family home.
The Minister has included the amendment in paragraphs 1 to 6. As a result, difficulties will arise for the tenant who is dispossessed. One practical problem is that the dispossessed tenant is likely to be the tenant who does not have the children. That tenant will be regarded as a single person and will have low priority for a house. Injustice may arise.
I think that the Minister accepts the recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission that matters relating to occupancy should be left to the court. However, in doing so he has let down one of the partners of the broken marriage. I can understand why he waits for a further report from the Scottish Law Commission, because this is primarily a housing matter, and not a question of procedures relating to occupancy orders. It is significant that the Finer committee and a working party of the SSHA have recommended that suitable alternative housing should be provided in the circumstances that led up to the presentation of the original amendment in Committee.
§ Amendment agreed to.
11.30 pm§ Mr. RifkindI beg to move amendment No. 198, in page 49, line 23, after ' tenant ', insert ' of the dwelling-house'.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this we may take Government amendments Nos. 199, 200, 201, 202, 203 and 205.
§ Mr. RifkindThese amendments make a single change in relation to the grounds of possession relating to anti-social behaviour. They extend the scope from anti-social behaviour by adjoining occupiers to behaviour in the vicinity of the 747 house. This seems to be much more appropriate, and I commend the amendments to the House.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendments made: No. 199, in page 49, line 25, after ' conduct ', insert
'in the vicinity of the dwelling-house'.
§ No. 200, in page 49, line 25, leave out to adjoining occupiers'.
§ No. 201, in page 49, line 28, after ' tenant ', insert ' of the dwelling-house'.
§
No. 202, in page 49, line 30, after ' conduct ', insert
'in the vicinity of the dwelling-house'.
§ No. 203, in page 49, line 30, leave out ' to adjoining occupiers'.
§
No. 205, in page 50, line 19, at end add—
'13. The interest of the landlord in the dwelling house is that of a lessee under a lease and that lease either
§ Mr. Gordon WilsonI beg to move, amendment No. 207, in page 50, line 46, at end insert—
'(g) its distance from the home of any member of the tenant's family if proximity to it is essential to the wellbeing of that member or of the tenant.'.
§ Mr. WilsonI am not sure why there is so much irritation from hon. Members tonight. We are engaged in discussing very serious business for Scotland, and as a Scottish Member I resist being pushed and pressed in any way. If I hear any more comments, I shall extend my remarks.
This is a simple amendment which would have been completed by now had I been given the opportunity. Its purpose is to add another criterion for allocation of houses relating to the distance from the home of any tenant of a member of his family if proximity is essential to the well-being of either. We are all aware of circumstances in which that criterion would save many families much distress. One must realise, of course, that there may be a shortage of houses available for that purpose. 748 I commend the amendment to the Minister, and I hope that he will accept it.
§ Mr. RifkindI agree with the hon. Member's objective and I hope to assure him that his amendment is unnecessary.
In its present form, the Bill specifies that any special needs of the tenant or his family should be taken into account in determining the suitability of alternative accommodation. The hon. Member can rest assured that the circumstances provided by his amendment are encompassed by these words, and they will enable any special needs of the tenant to be taken into account.
§ Mr. WilsonI made it clear earlier that I prefer these things to be explicit rather than implicit, and I am not sure whether the definition which the Minister has given will hold water. All I can do is to ask him to say that, if experience proves that the objective is not secured by the Bill as drafted, he will seek to redress the position. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. George RobertsonI beg to move amendment No. 208, in page 51, line 5, leave out ' 14 ' and insert ' 28'.
We have said before, and I say it again, that we consider a period of 14 days to be inadequate for people to consider an offer of suitable accommodation. We believe that 28 days is a more appropriate period, and we hope that the Government will give further consideration to our suggestion.
§ Mr. RifkindI assure the hon. Gentleman that the period of 14 days is not a statutory requirement. It is purely a minimum period. If a local authority wishes to provide for a greater length of time, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent that. I am sure that the hon. Member will accept that, given that this is purely discretionary, it is appropriate that the Bill should remain in its present form.
§ Mr. RobertsonIn the hope that the hopes of the Minister are fulfilled, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.