DWELLING HOUSE LET AS SEPARATE DWELLINGS (Hansard, 18 January 1984)

§ Mr. Craigen
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is really a probing debate. Had the Minister met the conditions of the 21-day rule which he was proposing in respect of landlords' response in the consultation document, we would not be debating this new clause now. As the Minister knows, I wrote to him during the recess, asking for his comments on the representations which had been put to him last month by the Scottish Council for Single Homeless in respect of the situation facing those with shared tenancies. The council is concerned that a situation may have arisen where a shared tenancy in a public sector dwelling would not be secure because it would not fulfil one of the three criteria set out in the original legislation.
As I understand it from the Scottish Council for Single Homeless, formal opinion of counsel has been obtained in respect of Edinburgh council to the effect that if a district council or housing association lets a flat to two or more persons on a sharing basis there can be no secure tenancy. It may be that the Minister will be able to clarify this matter. He has had these representations from the Scottish council. I wrote to him in advance of today's debate and it will be interesting to hear what he has to say.

§ Mr. Hugh Brown
The Minister will probably agree the no organisation that makes representations to Government attracts more sympathy than the Scottish Council for Single Homeless. That genuine and sincere organisation has always cared for the problems associated with single people, and increasingly such problems affect a larger proportion of the population. More and more young people now leave home and form new relationships, but it is slightly misleading to think that all the single homeless have problems.
In our attempt to use a shorthand phrase, there is a danger that we are unclear about which groups are affected. I merely ask the Minister to show some sympathy for this problem, which should appeal to his philosophy on the extension of tenants' rights.
I do not seek to create difficulties for housing authorities, but several problems spring to mind. There is a need to modernise and rehabilitate multi-storey flats. The Minister will probably be aware of the Red road flats in Glasgow, the Westercommon flats owned by the SSHA in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for 383 Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) and the sale of Martello Towers in Edinburgh. Those examples suggest that we should consider how we can better use multi-storey blocks. Perhaps in future such accommodation can be shared by several young people, students or whoever. We should at least pay attention to a problem that may well develop.
We are all in favour of releasing as many people as possible from mental hospitals, and I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the good work done by some authorities that have introduced group tenancies. However, that presents problems for the DHSS as no one person holds the tenancy.
There is common agreement in the House that such groups should be treated as sympathetically as possible. We should certainly consider whether those involved in group tenancies have individual rights, although as my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill said, counsel opinion seems to be that they do not.
Another group that springs to mind, which unfortunately does not attract the concern of the public, is offenders who are being resettled. There is at least some justification for demonstrating to the Scottish Council for Single Homeless that we are aware of the problem. Hopefully, we can approach this matter in a genuine, non-partisan manner. Such problems are real and we should show some sympathy and understanding.

§ Mr. Ancram
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) for the way in which he made his remarks. I shall deal with some of those points later.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) has not yet received a reply to his letter, but he must appreciate that over the holiday period the impeccable timing of my Department is not quite as tight as it normally is.
The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about certain aspects of the existing law and reflected the concern of the Scottish Council for Single Homeless. In particular, he was concerned about security of tenure as it relates to shared tenancies.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am not able to provide an authoritative interpretation of statute, because that is a matter for the courts. it may, however, assist him and the House if I outline my view of the present position.
Shared tenancies typically involve the granting of a tenancy to a group of people — usually unrelated —occupying a single house. Normally, tenants have a bedroom of their own and share communal living accommodation. In general, that is standard and typical.
Such shared tenancies can be constituted in three different ways—first, through a head tenancy, where one of the group is the tenant and the others have the status of lodgers or sub-tenants; secondly, through a joint and several tenancy, where all members of the group are joint tenants; and, thirdly, through group tenancies where all members of the group have individual tenancies.
8.15 pm
The position with regard to security of tenure is relatively straightforward in relation to the first two ways of constituting a shared tenancy. In the case of a head tenancy, the one tenant has security of tenure and enjoys all the other rights that comprise the tenants' charter, and 384 the other members of the group, in common with other lodgers or sub-tenants, do not enjoy any of the tenants' charter rights.
In the case of a joint and several tenancy, each and every member of the group is a secure tenant in the same way that a husband and wife who are joint tenants both have security of tenure. Those two categories are relatively straightforward.
Where, however, the shared tenancy is constituted by several persons, each of whom has an individual tenancy, I admit that the position is not quite so clear. My advice is that none of the tenants has security of tenure, as none of them satisfies one of the necessary conditions for a tenancy to be a secure tenancy—that the tenancy must be a tenancy of a dwelling house which is let as a separate dwelling. This is true even where sharing tenants have exclusive use of one bedroom, as that bedroom is not itself let as a separate dwelling. Rather, it is let as a dwelling in conjunction with the shared use of the other communal facilities in the house.
Our view, therefore, is that tenants who occupy shared accommodation on the basis of an individual tenancy do not have security of tenure. Moreover, I consider that to give them such security in the absence of a much more thorough review of the role and status of such tenancies could cause more problems than it would solve. That is something of which we should be careful. It could, for example, lead to a situation where all the tenants have a right to buy all or part of the house irrespective of the wishes of the other members of the group. That would cause great problems.
The granting of security of tenure to such tenants could also undermine current attempts by some authorities to provide short-term accommodation in shared tenancies for special groups. The three groups that I intended to mention are the same as those referred to by the hon. Member for Provan—the single homeless, the mentally handicapped and ex-offenders.
This is something of which we should all be cautious. To create security of tenure could undermine some of the important attempts to give such people short-term accommodation, which by its nature must require no security of tenure. After all, such accommodation is usually provided on a short-term basis in an effort to assist the person in question establish or re-establish himself within the community, and it is essential to the success of such schemes that authorities retain control over who occupies the accommodation available and how long they remain there.
I appreciate that uncertainty exists in this area, but I do not think that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Maryhill is a solution.

§ Mr. Hugh Brown
My understanding is that the Scottish Council for Single Homeless was concerned about the right to a house, not the right to buy. I know that security of tenure under the Act gives the right to buy, but that was not the concern of the council. It was pressing for some security to be given to some of the individuals involved in these group tenancies, for example, under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act.

§ Mr. Ancram
I appreciate that. The new clause was framed in this way because the Bill involves security of tenure and the right to buy. When security of tenure is created, one of the benefits that it brings is the right to buy. 385 Bearing in mind what I said earlier, great problems and difficulties could be caused for the type of person whom the hon. Member for Provan is seeking to help. I hope that the hon. Member for Maryhill will withdraw the motion.

§ Mr. Craigen
I note what the Minister said. We are not dealing with a simple matter. From what the Minister said, the Scottish Council for Single Homeless has cause for concern. It appears that the right to buy is cutting across the right to a secure tenancy, as we heard from the Minister's response.
I accept the Minister's apology for the delayed correspondence. I teased him about the timing of his reply and he will recall my remark about the 21-day rule. He assured me that Christmas and the new year came within the 21-day period, so some working days were available to complete the reply that I requested. It would be useful to know whether the Minister will discuss the issue with the Scottish Council for Single Homeless. I am sure that the council does not wish matters to remain as they are. If I received such an assurance, I would beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

§ Mr. Ancram
I shall try, in a letter to the hon. Gentleman, to deal with some of the points that he has raised.

§ Mr. Craigen
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.