§ 'The following amendments shall be made to the Housing Act 1980—
- (a) In section 34—
- (i) after subsection (2)(c) shall be inserted— "(d) on ground 14 unless conditions 3(a) and (c) are satisfied";
- (ii) after subsection (3)(b) shall be inserted— "(c) that the court is satisfied that suitable accommodation will be available for both partners when the order takes effect"; and
- (iii) in subsection (4) the words "for a tenant" shall be left out and the words "and, for the purposes of Ground 14 only, includes a sole tenancy of the dwelling house which is the subject of the proceedings." inserted instead.
- (b) In Schedule 4, after Ground 13 shall be inserted— "Ground 14
The dwelling house has been occupied by partners and one of the partners has notified the landlord in writing that either—
- (a) she or he no longer wishes to live with the other partner as husband and wife; or
- (b) the partners have ceased to live together as husband and wife.
- (c) In Schedule 4, paragraph 2, after paragraph (f) shall be inserted—
"(g) the location of the accommodation if one of the partners (as defined for the purposes of Schedule 4 ground 14) or a members or members of his/her family has suffered violence or threats of violence from his/her partner or a member of his/her partner's family.".'.—[Mr. Chris Smith.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Chris SmithI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause deals with an important topic that we discussed briefly in Committee and on which the Government expressed their sympathy. I have attempted to clarify some of the issues raised in Committee arid to answer the objections made at that time.
The clause deals with problems relating to the tenancy of a dwelling when a relationship breaks down and a couple separate and need alternative accommodation. It seeks to ensure that, if the parties wish and the local authority agrees, a procedure can be implemented to make alternative accommodation available to both parties.
The problem is a major one. If a marriage breaks up and there are proceedings in the divorce court, there is legal redress if one of the parties becomes homeless. However, if the partners are not prepared to go through divorce proceedings, perhaps because of religious objections, or if they are ineligible to do so because they have not been married long enough, there is no such legal redress. Similarly, if a couple are not married and are cohabiting there is no legal formula to allow a local authority to determine who should retain the tenancy of the dwelling and what should happen to the other partner.
There are special problems with joint tenancies, because it is possible for one partner to apply to the local authority for a determination of tenancy. The other partner might not know or approve of that action.
The new clause attempts to sort out the web of problems and to plug the obvious loopholes in the existing raw. It has a number of advantages over the new clause that I moved in Committee. It is simpler and it does not have the defects that were apparent in the previous new clause. It now includes a specific test of reasonableness in the court and refers to the grounds that must be cited.
8.30 pm
Thirdly, the new clause ensures that three parties are involved in the decision—the partners who are breaking up, the local authority, and a judge in court to decide on the reasonableness or otherwise of the action that the local authority proposes. The new clause is ringed with sufficient safeguards to ensure that the process is not abused.
Fourthly, the new clause also tries to tackle the major problem of the location of the accommodation that should be offered where the partnership has broken up because of violence. Often, a woman has been subjected to violence by the man with whom she is living, and the accommodation offered to her as an alternative must be safe and secure from the possibility of further attack.
The new clause attempts to tackle all these problems. I hope that the Government will recognise the major difficulties associated with relationship breakdowns and the threat of resultant homelessness. When a relationship breaks down, the experience is traumatic enough for the
501 partners involved. The possibility of homelessness, as at present, on top of the trauma and personal difficulties experienced by the two partners is a major addition to their suffering and pain.
The new clause would enable a local authority to guarantee accommodation to both parties and to ensure that the transfer was smooth and responsible. I hope that the Government will accept the points enshrined in the new clause and my efforts to improve it in an attempt to tackle this serious and difficult problem.
§ Mr. Simon HughesAn additional reason for supporting the new clause is that it is easier to deal with this problem under housing law than it is under matrimonial law and orders made in family law courts.
Before I entered the House, I dealt with these very problems as a lawyer. I was concerned about how any court could be persuaded to make any sort of order when there was insufficient evidence of grounds for a potential annulment of marriage. It is very much easier to attach the new clause to housing legislation than to any other legislation.
To save a marriage or a relationship, it is often necessary for the partners to have an opportunity to separate temporarily. As I read the new clause, it does not impose on a local authority an obligation to find something out of non-existent housing stock. One of its preconditions is that suitable accommodation should be available to respond to such a need. It merely requires that a local authority should be satisfied that the partners are no longer willing, or do not wish, to live with each other. This is the most humane, efficient and sensible way of allocating a property to someone who in all probability would otherwise be forced to go into less secure accommodation.
A new clause along these lines introduced in housing legislation could help the many hundreds of people who regularly face this problem and who at present are unable to get help from local authorities.
§ Sir George YoungAs the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said, we debated a similar new clause in Committee. That was withdrawn because of defective drafting. The hon. Gentleman has done some legislative repairs to his defective structure, and new clause 9 removes the previous drafting defects by requiring a court to be satisfied that it would be reasonable to make an order for possession under new ground 14 and that suitable accommodation would be available for both partners when the order took effect.
While the new clause solves some problems, the Government believe that it creates others that are formidable. The principle behind new clause 9 is much the same as that behind the original new clause debated in Committee. What I then said still holds good. The proposals do not provide a solution to the problems facing people whose relationships break down.
One must be absolutely clear about what is meant by this seemingly innocent new clause. It is about a couple who have either parted or wish to part, one of whom notifies the landlord of that intention under clause 14. The landlord can then go to court and accommodate both partners separately.
This all sounds fairly harmless. However, it does not have to be the tenant who notifies the landlord. It could be his partner. If the tenant no longer wishes to live in the 502 family home. he or she can simply surrender the tenancy and there would he no need for any new ground for possession. Alternatively, he or she could assign the tenancy to the other partner under section 37 of the Housing Act 1980.
The hon. Gentleman has said that his proposal would make life easier for both partners and that it would protect their rights. That is not so. In simple language the new clause means that, although the tenant wants to stay in the family home, the partner— a man or woman, a joint tenant or indeed a non-tenant—wants the tenant to be evicted. The tenant may have done absolutely nothing wrong as a tenant and none of the 13 grounds for possession in schedule 4 of the Act may apply. It is clear from the new clause that the couple may no longer be living together when one of them so notifies the landlord. It could, therefore, simply be a malicious means of getting the tenant out, with the accompanying loss of the right to buy that dwelling house.
§ Mr. Chris SmithDoes not the Minister accept that the new clause as now drafted ensures that there are two further stages in the process? The local authority must be satisfied that the proposed action is sensible, and the court must be satisfied that it is reasonable. Given those two safeguards, surely the Minister's point falls.
§ Sir George YoungI am afraid not. Let me develop the scenario that I have outlined. Instead of the couple occupying one dwelling house, the new clause would require the landlord to find two dwelling houses. Many people would simply regard that as queue jumping.
The Opposition constantly decry the right to buy on the grounds that it reduces a council's housing stock, yet they now seek to introduce a new clause that would enable single people to jump the queue and be rehoused ahead of married couples with children, who often live in extremely difficult accommodation. People will find it odd that two dwelling houses for a cohabiting couple without children would have to be found under the new clause at the expense of others in really needy circumstances.
§ Mr. Simon HughesI accept the Minister's point, but does he accept in return that the giving up of a two or threebedroomed property and the rehousing of the former family unit elsewhere does not necessarily mean queue jumping? Quite often they are rehoused in single-person accommodation which is perhaps less desirable because it is part of a tower block. That would surely release larger accommodation for family use.
§ Sir George YoungI am not sure of the situation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but in mine there is enormous pressure on accommodation of all types. Many London boroughs do not have accommodation available for single people. Indeed, in many cases the most acute shortage is in that sector. For a local authority to offer accommodation for one half of a cohabiting couple ahead of others on the waiting list would be a misordering of priorities.
The objections that I outlined in Committee remain unaltered. Basically, an innocent secure tenant can be ousted from the family home by his or her partner. The issues at stake are not ones of housing management and are best dealt with, despite what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, not by housing legislation, but by matrimonial legislation in the
503 courts, where this question can be settled as part of the whole division of the property on divorce. I accept that matrimonial legislation has little effect, at this stage, on cohabiting couples, but that is a responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor. As I think that the hon. Member knows, this is being considered by a committee chaired by Mrs. Justice Booth. I am willing to approach the Law Commission on this matter if that would assuage the fears of some hon. Members.
§ Mr. Simon HughesIt is clear that often this concerns not just cohabiting couples but couples who are petitioning for an end to their relationship and therefore have not come to a divorce yet. Courts regularly say that they cannot deal with the problem because they have no authority over the local authority. I should be grateful if the Minister could reconsider this because I think that he will find that courts cannot readily deal with the problem unless they are given the jurisdiction of a petition for divorce or annulment by the parties, which often is not the case.
§ Sir George YoungI shall see that what the hon. Member has said is referred to the committee, which I have just mentioned, chaired by Mrs. Justice Booth. A court looking at the whole context of a relationship is a better forum in which to resolve some of these problems than a chairman of a housing management committee, which is the suggested alternative.
I accept that there are delays in getting to court, and that there are always demands and counter-demands on a court's time, each claiming priority. These are secondary issues that must not obscure the reality that the destination of a family home is best decided under matrimonial legislation, not housing legislation. There are always problems when relationships break down, and I agree entirely with what the hon. Member said on that. However, the issues are complex and I cannot accept the argument for treating housing as an issue separate from the other issues involved in matrimonial or quasi-matrimonial disputes. While many people may suffer hardship under the present arrangements, others can suffer hardship under new clause 9, and I cannot accept that this is the right solution. I invite the House to reject the new clause.
§ Question put and negatived.