Commons Sitting of 9 June 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [10 December], That the Bill he now considered
  Debate further adjourned till Thursday 16 June

  FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 16 June.

  NORTH KILLINGHOLME CARGO TERMINAL BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Wednesday 15 June at Seven o'clock.

  NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE TOWN MOOR BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 16 June.

  ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [11 May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Debate further adjourned till Thursday 16 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    National Pig Breeders Association
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the president of the National Pig Breeders Association; and what matters were discussed.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): My ministerial colleagues and I keep in regular touch with representatives of pig producers, including the National Pig Breeders Association, on a wide range of issues.
    Mr. Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious state of the pig industry, with a large number of pig breeders going out of business? Will he bear in mind the need to continue his pressure in Europe for the abolition of MCAs? Will he examine allegations that some EEC countries are illegally subsidising their pig industries? That practice is unfair competition.
    Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I am aware of the position of the pig industry. Although prices recently stabilised, as my hon. Friend knows, we are in the classic situation of supply outstripping demand, which is the basic cause of the problem. There is a strong case for the abolition of pigmeat MCAs, and I have been making that case in the Council. As always, it is one of the most hotly contested issues in any Council discussion, with several member states taking different views. It is not easy to get the required majority for any line of action.
    On my hon. Friend's point about unfair state aids, the Commission is investigating an Italian state aid, which I think will be found to be illegal. It is also investigating French state aids. We are always assiduous in drawing such matters to the Council's attention.
    Mr. Martlew: Is the Minister aware that, according to the latest figures from the National Pig Breeders Association, in the year to April, the prices that breeders were paid for pig products dropped by 12 per cent., yet the increase in supermarket prices was 2 per cent.? Can the Minister explain that? Could the reason be that a cartel is being run by the major superstores in this country?
    Mr. MacGregor: They are matters for commercial consideration. The basic reason why pig prices have fallen is that supply and demand are currently out of balance; supply is greater than demand. However, although the price to pig producers has fallen, the average ex-farm price of feed wheat is now nearly £17 per tonne lower and hat feed barley is about £5 per tonne lower than they were at this time last year. That is undoubtedly helping margins.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the serious position of the pig industry in Northern Ireland, which is on the periphery of the United Kingdom? Can he give the House any inkling about how his negotiations are going and what is being done to rid us of MCAs?
    Mr. MacGregor:Ever since price-fixing discussions began I have been pressing pigment MCA as one of my

    971
    main issues, and I shall continue to do so. I have again done so this week. We shall return to the Council on Monday of next week, when it is hoped that we shall start to reach conclusions. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall again press the matter then.
    Dr. David Clark: In his discussions with the National Pig Breeders Association, did the Minister discuss the implications for the pigmeat trade of the freeing of the market in 1992? Can he guarantee that the health of the British public will remain protected against infected imported meats?
    Mr. MacGregor: Obviously I bear the move to 1992 very much in mind when arguing for the elimination of pigmeat MCAs. However, I believe that that case is already very strong because the current position is out of kilter with the original reason for setting pigmeat MCAs, so I should like them to be eliminated now. Certainly it should be done by 1992.
    We are moving towards harmonisation with regard to protection against disease within the Community. However, it is very important that we have guarantees from countries that are swine fever free that their Governments are as assiduous as we are in ensuring that those areas remain disease free.

    National Farmers Union
    Mr. Bellingham: T: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the president of the National Farmers Union; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. MacGregor: I last met the president of the National Farmers Union formally on 16 May when we discussed the Commission's 1988℃89 farm price proposals. I have met him informally on a number of occasions since.
    Mr. Bellingham: When my right hon. Friend next meets the president, will he make clear to him the importance of the sugar beet sector to Norfolk farmers, particularly bearing in mind the despondency in agriculture at the moment? Sugar beet is one of the few bright lights on the horizon. Will he assure the House that no sugar beet package will be agreed at Monday's Council meeting that puts the United Kingdom at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis Italy and France? Will he do all that he can to persuade the Community to prevent Italy and France from renewing national aid to their sugar beet production sectors?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend will know that I am extremely well aware of the importance of sugar beet to Norfolk farmers. I can, therefore, assure him that I will endeavour to achieve what he asks. At the moment the Commission's proposal is for a price freeze which would not affect the competitive position of the United Kingdom industry. An attempt was made during the lead-up to the summit reforms to undermine our position through the sugar supplementary levy and we successfully fought that off. With regard to the aids in France and Italy, there is no Commission proposal to that effect in the price fixing at the moment.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the Minister agree with the statement made by the president of the National Farmers
    972
    Union today that up to 30 per cent. of support to sheep farmers will be cut under the present proposals of the EEC policy for sheepmeat?
    Mr. MacGregor: That will not happen under the proposals before us on stabilizers—which is the issue that we have already decided—unlessthere is a massive increase in sheepmeat production which would cause the stabiliser to be triggered in a substantial way. I do not envisage that happening. I have not seen the statement, but I imagine that the president had in mind the future of the sheepmeat regime as a whole. We have not yet embarked on discussions on that, so it is not possible to predict the outcome.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: On his next visit to the National Farmers Union, will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to raise the problems raised with me by the Devon branch of the Women's Farmers Union about the continuing and upgraded use of bovine somatotropin in the production of milk? The Women's Farming Union believes that the lack of labelling of milk produced by that method will have a still further depressing effect on the sale of Dorset milk.
    Mr. MacGregor: There is a question later on the Order Paper about product licensing and that is what will determine whether we see a big expansion, or any expansion, in BST milk. I will answer that question when we come to it and we will have to look at the question of labelling. If there is consumer concern about BST, labelling may be the way to tackle it. However, that raises many commercial considerations which will have to be discussed widely.
    Dr. David Clark: In view of the comments of the Select Committee on the Environment on the NFU's sanguine view and the Department's complacent attitude towards agricultural pollution, when the Minister next meets the president of the NFU will he draw his attention to the fact that farm pollution incidents are at their highest recorded level? Will he also tell him that enough really is enough?
    Mr. MacGregor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not take a sanguine view of farm pollution. He will have seen the comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State earlier this week when the latest report was published. We take the matter very seriously and I am anxious to reduce substantially the number of farm pollution incidents. We are not sanguine about the matter.

    Milk Marketing Board
    Mr. Robert Hicks: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board; and what subjects he proposes to discuss.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): My right hon. Friend expects to meet the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board later today to discuss various issues affecting the dairy industry.
    Mr. Hicks: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board to discuss New Zealand butter, will he confirm that the purpose of the transitional period, which started 15 years ago, was to enable New Zealand to seek alternative markets for its dairy products but that it still has one third of the United

    973
    Kingdom packed butter market? Is not there evidence that New Zealand can benefit from world markets by the increase in the price of dairy products in those markets? In the last four years alone, that has enabled New Zealand to benefit to the tune of an additional £180 million.
    Mr. Thompson: New Zealand's agricultural interests have been active in putting their case throughout Europe and the world. It will be for the Commission to devise any new arrangements with the New Zealand Government and the New Zealand butter industry. New Zealand butter is not part of our quota arrangements.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Is not the European Economic Community a cynical con which makes people suffer, especially small farmers and working-class individuals? Would it not be better if we were honest enough to face the fact that Britain suffers in many ways because of the EEC and that it would be far better to withdraw from it instead of kidding people that the EEC matters? It matters only to rich farmers and to people in big business. That is a fact.
    Mr. Thompson: It is not a fact that all classes of people in Britain suffer from this country being in the EEC. The contrary is true.
    Mr. Jack: Is my hon. Friend fully satisfied that the Milk Marketing Board has taken every opportunity to develop innovatory products to counter the flow of foreign-produced dairy products on to our supermarket shelves?
    Mr. Thompson: The Milk Marketing Board, together with Dairy Crest, is alive to the competition that it faces on the supermarket shelves. That competition will expand if people continue to buy foreign goods. I am sure that the M MB is looking at every possible way of adding value to milk, thus competing by producing import substitutes, and that it will also do everything it possibly can to find markets for its exports.

    Set-Aside
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the first arable land to he set aside under his new proposals.
    Mr. MacGregor: I shall be making an anouncement shortly on the implementation in the United Kingdom of the Community set-aside scheme in order to enable it to go ahead in time for this autumn's planting.
    Mr. Pike: The Minister has a tight timetable. He has to have a scheme in place by 14 July. Does he intend to allow the option of extensive grazing to be used? If so, what type of payment will be involved? If the Minister intends to permit that option to be used, will it not create other problems for agriculture?
    Mr. MacGregor: Those matters will have to await the announcement, but the hon. Gentleman is right when he says that there is a tight time schedule. We have been working very hard and we are in the final stages of preparation. I am anxious to make an announcement to the House as soon as possible. I know of the widespread interest in the matter and I want to make sure that farmers are able to take details of the scheme into account in their plans for the forthcoming year's planting. As for the hon.
    974
    Gentleman's last point, I have been listening carefully to all that has been said about grazed fallow, including the views of hon. Members.
    Mr. Latham: Is it intended that when the scheme has been produced, less grain should be grown or that the same amount of grain should be grown on less land?
    Mr. MacGregor: The primary objective is to deal with the problem of surpluses in cereals, but the scheme has other objectives. When farmers have to set aside 20 per cent. or more of their arable land, it will have a considerable impact on their cereal production. It may not be a full 20 per cent. in every case, but it will have a considerable impact, and less grain is the main objective.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it not a sad state of affairs, with one third of the world's population wanting food, that the Common Market and the Minister are getting together to set land aside and leave it fallow? Has the Minister taken into account the fact that after a few years, when some of the land has been lying fallow for a while, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment may come along and say, "As that land has not been used for arable purposes for several years, we can make a further incursion and use it for development"?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman's last point does not arise, because normal planning considerations will apply to all land, whether it is set aside or otherwise. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have a substantial food aid programme, but it is not the answer to the problems of agriculture in developing countries and those that are short of food. Those countries' leaders themselves make it clear that they believe that the development of their own agriculture is the important requirement. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would share our concern about the cost to the taxpayer of disposing of the surpluses; hence this measure as well as others.

    Fish Farming
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about fish farming in England and Wales.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I have recently received a request from the British Trout Association to create a development council for the trout industry and this is now being considered. I am also aware of a number of reports concerning the development of marine fish farming in Scotland.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is anything to be done about the effluent and disease problem?
    Mr. Gummer: We believe it to be an important part of any consideration to ensure that effluent and disease are taken fully into account. Obviously, one cannot buy increased production at an unacceptable cost. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has to take that into account, as it is particularly true of the sort of fish farming for which he is responsible.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to pay credit to the fish farming industry, which now produces 14,000 tonnes of fish a year worth £30 million and caters for 90 per cent. of the home market,

    975
    which is no mean achievement? Will he also bear in mind the interests of the 3·5 million anglers in the country who are concerned about water pollution and assure the House that before the water authorities are privatised there is a legal obligation on fish farmers, who might pollute waters, to obtain water abstraction licences before further development?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the tremendous advances in fish farming and to the fact that the price of farmed fish has brought within the reach of large numbers of people products that used to be denied to them. This is a great industry and one which we want to support. I am also concerned about the effect of pollution on rivers and we have already announced that the licensing of water abstraction is to be extended to all fish farms in England and Wales. That will be part of the legislation that comes before the House.
    Mr. Doran: Is the Minister aware that a considerable, if not the greater, part of research work into fish farming in this country is done at the Torry research centre in my constituency? Yesterday he sent me a letter refusing a request for the all-party group of Members with constituency interests in the fishing industry to visit the Torry research centre. Will he advise the House and those hon. Members who wish to visit the centre what exactly is going on at Torry that he wants to prevent them from seeing.
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman tells only half the story. He does not mention that I gave him specific permission to visit Torry, to meet anybody whom he wanted to meet and to ask any questions that he wanted to ask. For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that I am hiding something is wholly unacceptable.
    Mr. Key: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to read the excellent report of the Freshwater Biological Association and the Wessex water authority on fish stocks in the river Avon in my constituency, which has over 20 fish farms in its catchment area? Will he consider carefully their request and their recommendation for substantial further research into fish farming and the impact of pollution on that industry and the environment?
    Mr. Gummer: I shall certainly consider that question. I know that much of the work done is of great importance I also agree with my hon. Friend that the industry has to be taken extremely seriously not only in terms of its contributions to the British economy and its substitution for what would otherwise be imports but for its export potential.
    Dr. Godman: I am deeply concerned about the answer that the Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran). I intend to visit the Torry research station this month. I sincerely hope that I shall have the Minister's agreement to that visit.
    An effluent causing great concern is that associated with the use of Nuvan 500 EC on fish farms. What information has the Minister about its use on English fish farms and, if it is used, under what regulations is it used? Will he give serious consideration to banning the use of that pesticide on fish farms?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has asked a serious question about Nuvan. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is looking at the issue. As far as we know, there
    976
    is practically no use of that pesticide on English fish farms. I say "practically" because I do not want to say that there is no use, because it may be used℄although we cannot find any evidence of it. We are looking at the issue because it must be taken seriously.
    The hon. Gentleman's comment about his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) was the wrong way round. I went to great trouble to ensure that his hon. Friend could have every possible access, for the right reason that it is his constituency. When it was asked what facilities should be made available, I said that all facilities should be made available, because the centre is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    I have never refused any sort of co-operation in any such circumstances to Opposition Front Bench Members as I am sure that the right hon. and hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) will agree. It is not normal for any of our institutions to be available to any group of hon. Members who happen to wish to visit them, but I try to make such institutions as available as possible. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South would have done the House a courtesy if he had admitted what I have done for him.

    Bread Prices
    Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average annual increase in the price of a loaf of bread (a) between 1974 and 1979 and (b) between 1979 and 1988.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: The price of bread rose on average by 14 per cent. per annum between February 1974 and May 1979. The rate of increase between May 1979 and April 1988 was 6·9 per cent.℄less than half the rate during the previous shorter period.
    Mr. Smith: Does my hon. Friend recall that 10 years ago the price of a loaf of bread was a major political issue as it rose inexorably year in, year out, notwithstanding Canute-like food subsidies? From the figures that my hon. Friend has given, will not most people now be able to see which side their bread is buttered and continue to vote for the party of low price inflation?
    Mr. Thompson: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The price of bread has increased by 30 per cent. since 1960 compared with the price of milk which has increased by 53 per cent. and the price of a pint of beer which has increased by 87 per cent.
    Mr. Morley: Does the Minister agree that much of the top-quality grain used in bread production has been imported and is not home grown, because the bulk of the cereal grain grown in Britain is of poor quality and goes into intervention stores and attracts the subsidies that go with that?
    Mr. Thompson:Because of the climate, the bulk of the grain grown in Britain is of a different quality, not an inferior quality. It is used for different purposes.

    Green Pound
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made with attempts to devalue the green pound, following the recent meeting of the Agriculture Council.
    Mr. MacGregor: Discussions are still continuing. I have made it clear to the Agriculture Council that in my view it would be right to take a measured step in the current price-fixing towards the elimination of MCAs from all products by 1992, and to remove them immediately from the pigmeat sector.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My right hon. Friend is aware that I represent a typically inner-city constituency, but, by way of explanation, I should say that even that constituency has three splendid farms on its southern border. On behalf of that tiny minority, may I ask whether the negotiations will ensure that my three constituents and the rest of the farming community will have a fair deal? For the less initiated, how will it affect the cost of our food?
    Mr. MacGregor: I assure my hon. Friend that I am seeking a fair deal for the United Kingdom farmer at the price-fixing negotiations. I made clear my intentions about the green pound from the outset of the Council discussions. This will, however, he one of the trickiest parts of the negotiations, and we have not yet seriously debated it. My hon. Friend's second point depends on whether there is devaluation and the extent of it. The impact on the retail prices index of a 1 per cent. green pound devaluation is minute.
    Mr. Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend reassure the 500 farmers in my constituency that his efforts on green pound devaluation, MCA abolition and to prevent unfair subsidies abroad will result in a common agricultural policy that is truly free and fair? Our farmers are the most efficient in Europe, but they demand a free market, not a cheats' market.
    Mr. MacGregor: I assure my hon. Friend that that is my objective. I think that he used the words "cheats' market" at the end of his question. That is a separate issue, but he will be aware that I am one of the Ministers taking a lead in Europe in the drive against fraud in the CAP.

    Horses
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, pursuant to his answer of 5 May, Official Report, column 588, he will take steps to increase the use of horses as agricultural animals.
    Mr. Gummer: It is up to individual farmers to decide how they shall use their horses as agricultural animals. I recently addressed a conference to promote what I think is a very important aspect of farming.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Britain is the only EEC country not to recognise the horse as an agricultural animal? Is he further aware of the damage that that does to racing, breeding, bloodstock, riding and driving in this country? What animal could be more agricultural than a horse?
    Mr. Key: A cow?
    Mr. Devlin: A chicken?
    Mr. Tim Smith: A pig?
    Mr. Greenway: I do not think so.
    Will my right hon. Friend take steps to have the horse recognised as an agricultural animal, as it will be in 1992?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend must accept that a horse is an agricultural animal when it is an agricultural animal. When it is running in the Derby, it clearly is not an agricultural animal, and we intend to keep it so.

    Pig Movements (Cheshire)
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding Cheshire county council's charges for pig movements.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: Representations have been received from a number of individuals and organisations, including the National Farmers Union and the National Pig Breeders Association. All have expressed opposition to these charges.
    Mr. Butler: Is my hon. Friend aware that Cheshire county council is continuing to charge for pig movements, and that that does not have legal status? What action does he propose to take to stop that procedure?
    Mr. Thompson: I am aware of my hon. Friend's anxiety about this matter. He has been good enough to write to me about it, but I must reiterate the advice that I gave. This is a county council matter. It is for local Members of Parliament to put pressure on locally elected councillors who, all too often in this matter as in others, are ready to hide behind the Government.

    Bovine Somatotropin
    Dr. Marek: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to be in a position to announce the final results of the testing of bovine somatotropin; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. MacGregor: Results of trials authorised under animal test certificates are normally submitted to the licensing authority as part of any application for a product licence. They are assessed., together with all other information submitted in support of the application, in accordance with the provisions of the Medicines Act 1968. I cannot forecast at this stage what the outcome of any application in relation to bovine somatotropin would be.
    Dr. Marek: Will the Minister assure the House that when the information is available he will speedily pass it on to the public so that they are aware of BST'? Will he ensure℄I believe that there is cross-party support for this℄that BST-treated milk is labelled as such?
    Mr. MacGregor: Labelling is a separate question and depends on the outcome of applications for product licences. Two companies have applied for product licences, but the applications must be rigorously scrutinised. The difficulty about publishing the results of the trials is that all data supplied by companies in support of applications made under the Medicines Act are kept in strict confidence. The Medicines Act, under which that takes place, prohibits disclosure of the information.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my right hon. Friend's Department paying for, or otherwise supporting, any research into establishing reliable tests to show whether this hormone has been used? Surely without the existence of any such reliable tests it is quite pointless to talk about any control mechanism.
    Mr. MacGregor: There is a distinction between the animal test certificate and the product licence and before issuing an animal test certificate the licensing authority, advised by the veterinary products committee, has to be satisfied that there is no risk to human health. The authority was so satisfied in the case of the applications for animal test certificates. That is why the test trials are going on. There is no scientific reason to impose conditions on the disposal of milk because we have been advised by the veterinary products committee that there is no risk to human health. That has been the outcome of tests that have so far taken place. Wider tests are now taking place in relation to animal test certificates and in due course we shall have to take a view about applications for product licences.

    Raw Sugar Refining
    Mr. Shersby: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent proposals made by the European Economic Community Commission have been accepted for assistance in the refining in the United Kingdom of raw sugar imported from African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.
    Mr. Page: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the European Community Commission recognises any special circumstances surrounding the refining, in the United Kingdom, of raw sugar imported from the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries; what proposals have been made to the Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: In this year's price fixing the Commission has proposed a Community-funded aid of about 52p per tonne which will be available to all Community pure cane refineries and which could be adjusted to take account of changes in the storage levy and in Community prices. It has also proposed authorisation for a national aid of up to about £3·28 per tonne, 25 per cent. Community funded, on ACP sugar refined in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Shersby: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are willing to pay in full whatever percentage of the special refining aid the Commission stipulates should be at the discretion of the United Kingdom Government?
    Mr. Thompson: At present we are concentrating our efforts on persuading the Council to adopt the Commission's proposals which provide for this maximum rate of national aid. We shall review our stance in the light of the decisions reached by the Council.
    Mr. Page: As it has been about two years since the EC agreed to review this sugar cane refining margin, would my hon. Friend like to make a statement to the House about whether the increases will be backdated to 1 July 1987 as was originally proposed?
    Mr. Thompson: Under the Commission's proposals, not yet accepted by the Council, the suggestion is that both refining aids would be backdated to 1 July 1987.
    Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister confirm that, whatever the outcome of any price negotiations in any year, the commitment to 1·3 million tonnes of cane sugar is fulfillable only if the price permits the exporting Third
    980
    world countres to cover their transport and refining costs in this country? Is it not therefore important that any price should enable the EC to discharge its moral commitment to those Third world countries with which it is in association?
    Mr. Thompson: I know of the great interest of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) in this matter and the employment implications. I agree with all that the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Wells: Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether the cost of this extra sugar refining margin will be borne by the sugar producers or directly by the Government? Can he tell us whether we shall simply spend the money of the European Community to which we contribute 20 per cent.?
    Mr. Thompson: The Community will contribute 25 per cent. and the Government will contribute the remainer.

    Irradiated Food
    Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with consumer and similar groups about the import and export of irradiated food since the Chernobyl disaster.
    Mr. Gummer: As regards exports for which I have responsibility my officials have had contact not only with a great many individual consumers, producers and exporters but with a wide range of trade associations, producer and marketing groups, and trades unions.
    Ms. Ruddock: In the light of that reply, will the Minister reveal whether one of those organisations is the Asian regional office of the International Organisation of Consumer Unions, which claims that there has been deliberate dumping by Europe of contaminated food in the Third world? Will he set up an inquiry to ensure that Britain is not one of the responsible countries?
    Mr. Gummer: I will look into the matter that the hon. Lady has raised. Obviously, dumping of that kind would be completely unacceptable.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what discussions he or his Department have had with other EC countries to try to establish a standard of irradiation for all food stocks when there has been an accident such as Chernobyl?
    Mr. Gummer: As my hon. Friend knows, we have had a number of discussions. We have a system which will operate should any such accident take place in the future. However, we have not come to the kind of final decision that many hon. Members would like to see. I hope that the United Kingdom will continue to press for decisions based on the best scientific evidence and for proper protection for the consumer rather than rely on arguments which are sometimes merely emotional.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister accept that sheep farmers and farmers generally in Britain played a vital part in minimising the amount of contaminated irradiated food that was produced? In those circumstances, two years after Chernobyl, is it not ridiculous that there are dozens of farmers who have been affected by Chernobyl who still have not had adequate compensation for the trouble that they took at the time?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman fails to mention that £5·3 million has been paid out in compensation. The compensation arrangements were worked out step by step with the various unions and farmers were, in fact, considerably compensated. The only cases remaining are those which have specific objections to the rules laid down in agreement with the farming unions. It really is not fair to blame the Government for what has been a generous scheme.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Has my right hon. Friend had his attention drawn to research from Bristol university on the effects of post-Chernobyl radiation on sheep in Somerset and Devon? Is he aware of the urgent need to reassure farmers and consumers in that area on that matter before the subject is exploited by irresponsible people?
    Mr. Gummer: I am happy to tell farmers and consumers in the whole of the United Kingdom that there is no danger to human health as a result of Chernobyl. The sheepmeat that has been on sale in the United Kingdom has been wholly safe. At that time I was happy that my pregnant wife was busy eating lamb.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister not agree that the research unit at Bristol discovered the new contaminated hot spots, not so much by judgment as by luck? Is it not time that there was thorough research throughout the country to ensure that there are no other hot spots of irradiated land as a result of Chernobyl?
    Mr. Gummer: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has understood how the system works. He does considerable damage to cast doubt on the safety of the food that is produced in this country. I say again that no lamb has been sold in this country which could possibly he a danger to human health. We stand by that.

    Home Grown Cereals Authority
    Mr. David Davis: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Home Grown Cereals Authority; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. MacGregor: The last time I met the chairman of the HGCA was on 13 April when he and other senior figures from levy-funded bodies came to discuss the industry funding of research in agriculture, fisheries and food.
    Mr. Davis: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. In those discussions did he raise with the HGCA the possibility of the use of that research for low-cost, low-input, limited output varieties that will reduce the technological pressure on the CAP rather than exacerbate them?
    Mr. MacGregor: No, because we were not discussing individual items of research. However, I know that research into that matter is going on and a good deal of it will be longer-term. Basically, we were discussing possibilities for more industry funding of near market research, to ensure that the taxpayer was getting value for money and that there were proper priorities in any Government funded research. We also want to ensure proper commercial exploitation of the research that we do. That is what the discussion was concentrating on.

    Horticultural Produce (Dumping)
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he takes to prevent the dumping of horticultural produce on the British market.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: The horticultural market in the Community is protected from dumping from third countries by the reference price system for major products and by provisions in the treaty and in Community regulations which enable the European Commission to take action to control imports.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Is my hon. Friend aware that strawberries from Holland have been on sale in the Bristol and Liverpool markets at 25p per lb, which is well below the cost of production? Will my hon. Friend act to prevent that dumping by using the same Common Market procedure that was successfully used a year ago by the French Government to reduce imports of Spanish strawberries in similar circumstances?
    Mr. Thompson: My hon. Friend is quite correct about the disappearance of the threat of Spanish strawberries to our market. I shall look carefully at what he has told me about Dutch strawberries being imported into this country at a price which he alleges is below the production price.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Wall: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the President of Tanzania.
    Mr. Wall: Does the Prime Minister accept that many young people are becoming homeless to escape violence, sexual abuse, overcrowding or because of leaving care? Will she explain how, particularly in low-paid Bradford, young people can get together the £100, plus four weeks' rent in advance, which is required by most landlords? Will she explain to Sean Coles, who is 17 years of age, receives £19·40 per week and lives and sleeps in a rubbish skip, how he is to survive in her society? Are squatting or robbing the only alternatives?
    The Prime Minister: Undoubtedly some young people do leave home for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman gave, but by no means all: many leave home voluntarily. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that there have been changes in the way in which homeless teenagers are provided for financially. Under the old system, they used to get money in advance; now they get it in arrears. It is a new system. Local offices have taken special steps to inform landlords and hostels in their areas about the changes. Claimants are provided with evidence of having made a claim to help them to secure accommodation. The early indications are that landlords are beginning to adjust to the new rules.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. MacKay: Will my right hon. Friend welcome today's decision by the French Government to follow our lead in dealing with sub-Saharan debt? Does she agree that it is a pity that they did not respond more positively to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's initiative a whole year ago?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. A number of proposals have been received about how to deal with the debt problem. They all have one thing in common. They follow the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer of nearly a year ago. I agree that it would have been better if we had had a better response at that time. I hope that we shall deal with the matter effectively at Toronto. In the meantime, I make it clear that this country has already written off £1 billion-worth of debt.
    Mr. Hattersley: In the light of today's reports from the Low Pay Unit and the Child Poverty Action Group, does the Prime Minister still believe that everyone has benefited from increased prosperity during the past eight years?
    The Prime Minister: I have seen briefly the summaries of those reports. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the figures that were published in May, the low-income families statistics, which are the latest statistics and cover 1981, 1983 and 1985, confirm that people at all levels of income have been getting better off. They show that those on lower incomes have done better than the population in general and that there are fewer pensioners, in proportional terms, in the lower income bracket.
    Mr. Hattersley: That answer, as anticipated, dealt with the period up to 1986. Will the Prime Minister now bring her own figures up to date? Will she confirm that this year more than one million families and households are worse off by more than £3 a week as a result of the combined impact of the Budget and social security changes? Will she confirm that a total of seven million households are about to suffer a fall in their standard of living?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the Child Poverty Action Group figures referred at the latest to 1985; of course ours go beyond that. The Child Poverty Action Group figures are related strictly to the outdated method of supplementary benefit, whereas we are on a wholly new benefit system now. With regard to the new benefits, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, some 88 per cent. of people are on either the same or an improved rate of benefit—[Interruption.] Yes some others are on a lower rate.
    Mr. Hattersley: That answer may or may not be accurate. [Interruption.] It suffers from the minor deficiency of being the answer to a quite different question to that which I asked. So I ask her again, will she tell us yes or no, whether the very large number of families I quoted will be worse off as a result of the Budget? If she goes on waffling with this answer as she did with the previous one, it will reflect not only on her compassion but on her integrity as Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: No, I will not confirm the right hon. Gentleman's figures. The Budget was an excellent one. It has helped many people on lower pay because it has increased the allowances by twice the amount of inflation.
    984
    It has also reduced the standard rate of tax which, at the time when the right hon. Gentleman was in power was 33p in the pound, and is now down to 25p in the pound.
    Mr. Janman: Given our long-standing commitment to the independent nuclear deterrent, our recently announced support for the European fighter aircraft programme and our continuing full implementation of the armed forces pay review body recommendations, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's defence policies are intellectually well founded, firm and consistent, unlike the increasingly divided, indecisive and floundering policies of the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, our defence policies effectively safeguard the defence of this country and ensure that we are staunch allies of NATO, including its vital nuclear deterrent policy. I have not been able to make out the Opposition's policy. I do not believe that it has changed from having absolutely unilateral nuclear disarmament and no nuclear deterrent.
    Mr. McGrady: Does the Prime Minister share my concern for the welfare for the fishermen from the County Down coast who have suffered substantial losses of tackle, catches and equipment because of submarine activity in the Irish sea? Does she also share my concern about the unhelpful response from the Ministry of Defence, which said that such losses are due to natural underwater obstacles which have the unnatural ability to drag trawlers backwards at considerable speed? Will she take some action to alleviate their plight?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I am concerned about the plight of fishermen, but I do not think that I am going to get involved in this one. The hon. Gentleman must take it up with the Ministry of Defence, in which I have the greatest possible confidence.
    Sir Ian Lloyd: The Prime Minister will have seen the immensely disturbing reports this morning that Cuban forces are massing on the frontier of Angola and that the South African Government are calling up reserves. In view of the immense importance to the West of South Africa as a stable country, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister say precisely where we stand on this matter?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, of course we have seen the reports that there are a comparatively large number of Cuban forces near the Namibian border and comparatively near a very important dam. I think it is important that talks which began in London about the Angolan position are taken further. There is some dispute about where the next round of talks should take place. I think it is important that the two sides should get together and resolve that problem. I think that the Soviet Union too is anxious for it to be solved.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jones: The Prime Minister will be aware that the Welsh Office has consulted on the need for a new Welsh language Act and that the period of consultation ended in March 1987. Two thousand responded to the call for evidence and more than 90 per cent. were in favour. Does she now think that because of the obvious demand for

    985
    greater status for the Welsh language in Wales an announcement should be made? If an announcement is to he made, will it include a commitment to legislate at an early date?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the original responses were varied, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales decided to take further soundings. My right hon. Friend and the Minister of State are now considering measures to promote and protect the Welsh language, details of which will be announced shortly. There is, of course, no commitment to legislate.
    Mr. Stanbrook: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report of the tragic incident at a Manchester school in which an Asian boy was killed? Does she agree that that confirms that so-called anti-racist policies only strengthen race prejudice? Is it not now time for us to abandon policies which emphasise the differences between British citizens and to concentrate instead on those which promote the unity of this nation and pride in our achievements, irrespective of class, sex or race?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that everyone who settles here permanently has the same rights and responsibilities, and I welcome all genuine efforts to remove discrimination and racism.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Williams: Was it the Prime Minister's decision to send the SAS assassination squad to Gibraltar?
    The Prime Minister: We never discuss matters concerning security forces in this House.
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cran: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment in my constituency of Beverley in the north of England has fallen by 22 per cent. in the past year? Is she further aware that male manual earnings in Humberside are higher than the United Kingdom average? Does that not suggest to her, that her economic policy works for the north of England as well as the south?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, unemployment is falling in all regions, including Humberside which is now doing well. I agree with my hon. Friend that the overall policies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are returning enterprise to all parts.
    Mr. Foulkes: Has the Prime Minister had time to read today the report of the committee on medical aspects of radiation in the environment, which points to a direct link between Dounreay and an increased incidence of leukaemia, and recommends that increased monitoring, including full body monitoring, should be carried out? Will she confirm that this increased monitoring will apply not just to Dounreay but to every nuclear establishment in Britain?
    The Prime Minister: The committee on medical aspects of radiation in the environment has completed its consideration of the incidence of leukaemia in under 25-year-olds living near the Dounreay nuclear plant in Caithness and its report is published today. As my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for health in Scotland said yesterday, the Government have accepted the report and are now considering how best to implement the recommendations contained in it. The report identifies a number of possible explanations for there being six cases of leukaemia where only one would have been expected. It does not point to any particular explanation and therefore considers that all possible explanations require to be investigated further. Recommendations for these further investigations are made and are accepted.
    Mr. William Powell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Powell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her welcome and support for the success of the summit last week has been widely echoed throughout the country? Will she confirm that further rapid progress in the improvement of relations between East and West will be made possible if there is rapid success in the negotiations relating to the elimination of chemical weapons and to the reduction of the imbalance in conventional forces in central Europe?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend in welcoming the ratification of the intermediate-range nuclear weapons agreement. The next step should he to complete the negotiations on reducing United States and Soviet strategic nuclear weapons by 50 per cent. After that. as my hon. Friend pointed out, we must get on with the negotiations preferably to abolish chemical weapons and those on conventional weapons, and we now have a mandate to do that.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 13 JUNE—Until Seven o'clock, private Members' motions.
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill.
Ways and Means resolutions relating to the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Progress on remaining stages of the Housing Bill.
TUESDAY 14 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Housing Bill.
Motion to take note of EC documents on the limitation of the emission of pollutants from large combustion plants. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motions on the Building Societies (Commercial Assets and Services) and the Building Societies (Limits on Commercial Assets) Orders.
WEDNESDAY 15 JUNE—Completion of remaining stages of the Housing Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.
THURSDAY 16 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill [Lords].
Motion to take note of EC document on weights and dimensions of certain road vehicles. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion to take note of EC documents on proposals to extend roadworthiness testing. Details will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 17 JUNE—There will be a debate on the growth of the tourism industry on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 20 JUNE—Completion of remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill [Lords].
[Debate on Tuesday 14 June 1988. Relevant European Community Documents: (a) 11642/83, (b) 5124/85, (c) unnumbered, air pollution from large combustion plants.
Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee: (a) HC 78-xxvii (1983–84) para 4; (b) HC 5-xviii (1984–85) para 2.
Debates on Thursday 16 June 1988. First Debate. Relevant European Community Document: unnumbered, commercial vehicles: weights.
Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee: HC 43-xxvi (1987–88) para 2.
Second Debate. Relevant European Community Documents: ( a) 6878186, (b) 7946/87, roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and trailers.
Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee: (a) HC 21-xxiii (1985–86) para 5 and HC 21-xxvii (1985–86) para 4; (b) HC 43-iii (1987–88) para 2.]
Mr. Dobson: I thank the Lord President for telling us what the business is.
I think that the whole House recognises that the Minister for Housing and Planning is having great difficulty in producing a Housing Bill that makes sense even of his own proposals. Will the Lord President accept that the intention to complete the Commons consideration
988
of this measure next week will put an intolerable burden on the House and is likely to result in an even shabbier than normal Act of Parliament? Does he not accept that, with the Government having tabled no fewer than 183 new clauses and amendments, there is no possibility of their being properly considered? Will he seriously consider our request that further time be devoted to this Bill, even if it is only to make sure that the Bill is eventually a workable piece of legislation?
Having said all that, I must ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can tell us when we are to have the opportunity to consider the proposals on short speeches.
Turning from short speeches to the Short money, when can we expect to debate the proposals for uprating the funding of Opposition parties?
The Lord President will be aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has long been promising something that he refers to as the Welsh valley initiative. Can he give us an undertaking that that will be announced in the House before it is announced anywhere else?
When can we expect the oft-promised general debate on foreign affairs?
Finally, the Lord President will recall that last week I asked him if he would look into the police restrictions placed on access by right hon. and hon. Members to Downing street. I wonder whether he is in a position to make a statement on that now.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) asked me six questions about the business for next week and I shall seek to answer them in the order in which he asked them.
I understand that the Opposition are in some difficulty in respect of the Housing Bill. I believe that the time allocated is adequate, but I recognise that there is some concern. I am prepared to have discussions through the usual channels to see whether any assistance can be provided.
As to short speeches, I regret that the motion that I originally tabled could not be debated at the time that I intended. I hope to bring forward that motion again in the near future.
With regard to the Short money, the financial assistance to opposition parties, I hope that it may be possible to make an announcement about the timing of that debate in my next business statement.
I confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales hopes to make a statement in the House on the valleys initiative in the very near future.
It is my intention to have a debate on foreign affairs in the very near future, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the precise timing is best left for discussion through the usual channels.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, he raised last week the question—as did one of his hon. Friends—of Members' access to Downing street. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department explained in a written answer on 7 June to his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)
"Fresh instructions have been issued by the police to make it clear that, as hitherto, no restrictions should be placed on the number of hon. Members who need to enter Downing street in the course of their parliamentary duties."—[Official Report, 7 June 1988; Vol. 134, c. 448.]
It was most unfortunate that some right hon. and hon. Members were mistakenly prevented from entering

989
Downing street to present a petition. I hope that the House will accept that that was a genuine misunderstanding and nothing more. The Metropolitan police restrict access generally to Downing street in pursuance of their common law duty to prevent crime and disorder, but it has never been the intention to prevent hon. Members from pursuing their parliamentary duties.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. As we have been away for a week, I will repeat a statement that I made earlier this Session. The purpose of business questions is not to make a speech about a subject of an hon. Member's choice, but to ask for a debate. In order that I may be as generous as possible in calling Members to put supplementary questions, I ask hon. Members to confine themselves to one question and not to make a speech or to expect a detailed reply.
Mr. Michael Fallon: In view of the firm undertaking last night by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) to renationalise the Rover Group, will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on the state of the privatisation programme so that those people who work for privatised companies, or for companies which are to be privatised, may be very clear about their fate under any future Labour Government?
Mr. Wakeham: Enough was said in yesterday's debate to cause people concern about what might happen should there unfortunately be a change of Government at any future time. I should like to arrange such a debate, but I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate in the immediate future.
Mr. Ron Davies: Is the Leader of the House aware of the widespread concern on both sides of the House, and outside it, at the delay in implementing the fair labelling order by his hon. Friend the Minister for Trade? Is he aware that there is widespread support for that measure, and will he give a guarantee that the order will be laid before the summer recess?
Mr. Wakeham: Consultations and discussions are going on at the moment. I shall certainly refer the hon. Gentleman's concern to my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade.
Rev. Ian Paisley: In view of the serious deterioration in security in Northern Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that we have a full debate soon, keeping' in mind that not one person has been made amenable to the law for the terrible massacre in Enniskillen, the 11 murders in South Down and the 17 murders in Castlederg? Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that Members from Northern Ireland can take part in debates on and move amendments to English legislation but cannot move amendments to Northern Ireland legislation?
Mr. Wakeham: Of course I recognise the concern of the hon. Gentleman on security in Northern Ireland, the grave and continuing difficulties and the need for a debate. I also recognise the concern about the way in which legislation for Northern Ireland is dealt with. Any changes in that system would be best considered in the wider context of progress towards devolved government. I cannot promise
990
the hon. Gentleman an early debate, but I recognise the strength of what he has said and I will bear the matter in mind.
Mr. James Wallace: I am sure that the Leader of the House accepts that the report of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment on leukaemia clusters requires careful consideration because it raises important and serious issues. Will the House have an opportunity to discuss the report?
Will the Leader of the House also consider early-day motion 1185 in the names of myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends?
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Local Government ( Direct Labour Organisations) (Competition) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1988 (S.I. 1988, No. 956), dated 22nd May 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th June, be annulled.]
Will we have an opportunity to debate it, in the House or in Committee?
Mr. Wakeham: The second point on local government regulations in Scotland can best be discussed through the usual channels.
I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the COMARE report which has recently been published. I believe that there should be time for consideration. I cannot promise an early debate but I shall certainly bear the matter in mind.
Mr. Tim Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an early debate on defence policy would give those of us who favour multilateral rather than unilateral disarmament the opportunity to hail the unexpected but none the less welcome arrival in our ranks of the Leader of the Opposition, even if very few of his hon. Friends appear willing to follow him at this stage?
Mr. Wakeham: A debate on defence is an important part of the parliamentary year. We shall have a debate on defence, but the White Paper has only recently been published. I understand that the Select Committee on Defence is in the course of preparing a report on it. I want to have discussions as to the best time for that debate.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Has the Lord President of the Council seen early-day motion 1183 about the tragic crash of an RAF Meteor jet aircraft in Coven try on Monday 30 May and the heroism of the RAF pilot who gave his life to avoid crashing into the houses and the social club in Coventry, South-East?
[That this House notes with regret the fatal crash in Coventry of an RAF Meteor T7 jet aircraft during the Warwickshire Air Pageant on Monday 30th May; recognises that the pilot, Flight Lieutenant Peter Stacey, was a hero to give his life by crashing his plane on the only available space of open ground, between a school and two adjacent housing estates, thus avoiding turning a tragedy into a potential civil disaster; recognises that whilst air displays are a popular family entertainment, no entertainment is worth this risk to the lives of people, such as the constituents of the honourable Member for Coventry, South East who had large pieces of debris scattered onto their houses and grounds, which thankfully caused only minor damage; demands that the future organisation of such air displays be modified to ensure areas of dense population are

991
safe from potential accidents; regards the offer by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Armed Forces, in a letter to the honourable Member for Coventry, South East on 6th June, to send an advance copy of a summary of the findings of the Royal Air Force Board of Enquiry into the Meteor crash, as inadequate; and believes that for the peace of mind of the people of Coventry and the relatives of Flight Lieutenant Stacey, the investigation report should be published.]
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Secretary of State for Defence has not yet made a statement to the House on the crash? Air displays such as the Warwickshire air pageant, during which the crash took place, are popular family entertainment, but no entertainment is worth such a risk to the lives of my constituents who had large pieces of wreckage scattered on their homes and gardens.
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure the whole House will share the hon. Gentleman's regret at this tragic accident. A thorough investigation is being undertaken and the results will be made public in accordance with normal practice. I am sure that is the best way to proceed, and that all of us would want to express our sympathy to the relatives of the brave pilot who was killed.
Mr. Richard Holt: My right hon. Friend's announcement of a debate on tourism will be welcome, but tourists need roads. When will we have a debate on motorway policy so that the north-east can be exploited to the full by tourists, who would love to get there if only the motorways were adequate? There is unanimous support for an adequate motorway system to the north-east from everyone, it would appear, except "Pimply" Heller of The Daily Telegraph and those who advise the Minister.
Mr. Wakeham: I have answered previous questions on roads from my hon. Friend. I recognise the connection between roads and tourism. I should have thought that my hon. Friend, with his customary skill, would be able to relate the two in the debate on Friday 17 June.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Leader of the House will have seen last week's report on riots in Crowborough in Sussex. In recent years, there have been many such occurrences in more affluent parts of the country. Today, the Association of Chief Police Officers, is publishing a report about the new phenomenon of riots in so-called affluent areas. Will the Leader of the House made sure that we get a sight of the report? Will he arrange for it to be placed in the Library? We should debate the matter, if not next week, then soon, so that we can get away from the idea that the problem arises only in inner cities.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the strength of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, in view of the offices that he has held and his great experience in these matters. I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and see how best to meet the hon. Gentleman's request.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: Although it was good of my right hon. Friend to agree to draw the
992
attention of the relevant Minister to the question of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) about the labelling of furs, I remind him of my early-day motion 978.
[That this House, noting the intention of the Department of Trade and Industry to introduce a labelling Order to cover the furs of animals caught in leghold traps, a device made illegal in the United Kingdom following the report of the 1951 Scott Henderson Committee, which describes it as a diabolical instrument which causes an incalculable amount of suffering, congratulates the Minister for Trade on taking this valuable step, which will allow the consumer to exercise freedom of choice as to whether or not to purchase garments the production of which will have involved extreme cruelty to animals; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to include in the Order the furs of badger, beaver, bobcat, coyote, cross fox, ermine, fisher, gray fox, lynx, marten, muskrat, opossum, otter, racoon, red fox and wolf, all of which are frequently caught in leghold traps.]
My motion has attracted close to 100 signatures from hon. Members. We should get a move on so that people can exercise real consumer freedom of choice.
Mr. Wakeham: I have seen my hon. Friend's early-day motion, and I recognise the support that it has attracted. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade wants to get on with it as quickly as he can. He is in the process of negotiations, and I shall urge him to get on with them as fast as possible.
Mr. Adam Ingram: In view of the huge question mark involving alleged financial irregularities hanging over the proposed sale of the National Engineering laboratory at East Kilbride, is the Leader of the House prepared to make time available to debate that vital issue?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman time to debate the issue. If he has evidence of financial irregularities, I am sure that he knows the right way to deal with them.
Mr. Ian Gow: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the answer that he gave a moment ago, when he referred to progress towards devolved government in Northern Ireland? Will he explain why it is the Government's policy that there should be no devolved administration in Scotland or Wales but that there should be devolved administration in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Wakeham: My job is to answer questions about business for next week. I shall not indulge in a debate with my hon. Friend about that issue at present, although there are answers that can be given at the right time.
Mr. Harold McCusker: What proportion of the legislation that the right hon. Gentleman today announced will be proceeded with next week has any application to Northern Ireland?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot give the answer to that question without notice.
Mr. John Browne: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the alarming rise in the offence of violence against the police, that 90 per cent. of it is alcohol-related and it is rising fastest in counties like Hampshire, where the police are thinly distributed—widely distributed—over a large area? Dos he not think that this is such an alarming trend in crime that it deserves an urgent debate?
Mr. Wakeham: Yes, of course, these are important matters. I stated to the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), that I shall discuss the matter with the Home Secretary. I confirm that I shall do that.
Mr. Ron Brown: As the Prime Minister has condemned trial by media, surely we should have a special debate to consider the role of press barons, bearing in mind the sort of stories that are repeatedly pumped out about public figures, including hon. Members.
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman any Government time for such a debate. Perhaps he would like to have a word with his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench.
Mr. Tony Speller: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the growing number of parliamentary questions relating to pollution of the atmosphere, the earth, and the waters around our coast? Will he find time in the reasonably near future for a debate on pollution throughout the United Kingdom?
Mr. Wakeham: I noted my hon. Friend's success in obtaining the 17 May Adjournment debate on the subject of marine pollution. The Government are considering the points that he raised. It is not possible in the immediate future to have a debate on the wider issues. I shall certainly bear the matter in mind.
Mr. Tony Banks: May we have an urgent debate next week on the Government's flagrant abuse of parliamentary procedures? The Leader of the House will be aware that the Committee considering the Housing Bill finished its consideration on 15 March. As late as last night, new clauses and new amendments, including the "White Paper", were tabled by the Government. The Government are not giving the Opposition a chance fairly to reflect our role in the House by critically examining the Government's proposals. We do not have Report stages any more; we have new Bills on Report. We need an urgent debate on the flagrant abuse of the Government's position.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I recognise the concern. As I said to the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), I am perfectly prepared to have discussions through the usual channels on matters that are causing concern.
Mr. Chris Butler: In view of the proposals by Power, Water and Waste Ltd. to import millions of tonnes of festering American domestic waste into the north-west and south-west of England, will my right hon. Friend grant a debate so that hon. Members on both sides of the House can express their opposition to those proposals?
Mr. Wakeham: Of course I recognise my hon. Friend's concern. This is primarily a matter for the waste disposal authorities which are responsible for ensuring that any waste disposed of in their areas is dealt with properly and safely. I suggest that my hon. Friend gets in touch with them, but I will bear in mind what he has said.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: In view of the widespread concern about apparent unfettered exploitation by loan sharks, when are the Government going to take some initiatives to bring recommendations to the House to tighten up the laws against loan sharks?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has any particular case in mind. If he has, I suggest that he either gives me details or makes details available to the Department of Trade and Industry or 'to the appropriate authority. With regard to matters of financial irregularity generally, I believe that my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry acts properly and swiftly in accordance with the law, which we have very much strengthened in recent years.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Earlier this week a teenage girl was killed in my constituency by a heavy goods vehicle. I believe that that was the fourth such incident in Kent this year and it throws into stark relief the importance of a debate on the whole question of road provision in Kent following the building of the Channel tunnel. Will my right hon. Friend grant a debate on that subject?
Mr. Wakeham: I am very distressed to hear what my hon. Friend has said about events in Kent. Of course, the subject of roads and the Channel tunnel is a suitable one for debate, and I wish that I could offer my hon. Friend an early date for such a debate. He will recognise the substantial increased resources that the Government have found for the road programme.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that in the Scottish Grand Committee this morning we received an extremely unsatisfactory reply from the Minister of State? In particular, he could not assure the Committee that there would be a separate Scottish Bill for the privatisation of electricity. Will the Leader of the House assure the House that there will be a separate Scottish Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it is an important matter. In view of the obscure replies from the Minister of State in relation to the imports of coal for power stations in Scotland, may we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Energy to clarify the matter and give some clear sign of the state of negotiations between the South of Scotland electricity board and British Coal?
Mr. Wakeham: I have not had an opportunity to read the report of the debates upstairs and I am not sure whether I should comment on it if I had. However, I will take the opportunity to do so, and will refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy if I think that he should take any action.
Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving time for an early debate on the impartiality of the BBC? Is he not particularly worried that this coming Saturday some 10 hours of air time is to be given over to an organisation that supports terrorism?
Mr. Wakeham: These are primarily matters for the BBC. The Anti-Apartheid Movement concert is not a matter for the Government. However, I should tell my hon. Friend that the Government are considering representations received in Pretoria this morning in connection with the matter.
Mr. Paul Boateng: With his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, will the Leader of the House find time, not least in view of the unusually forthright condemnation of racial discrimination by the Prime Minister a few minutes ago, to arrange an urgent debate on racial harassment, in view of the report that was issued only yesterday by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that shows an alarming increase in London alone of 26 per cent. in this particularly unpleasant form of crime?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the concern and the force of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I cannot promise a debate in the near future.
Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Will not my right hon. Friend reconsider the question of the BBC's charter and its use of public money? Does he not share the widespread concern, at least on this side of the House, about the fact that the BBC is prepared to spend a large amount of its, and therefore its licence payers', money and a lot of air time on praising somebody who has been convicted of terrorism and who refuses to renounce violence?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern. There will be an opportunity before too long for a debate on broadcasting, but I cannot promise one immediately.
Mr. Kevin Barron: In the time allocated next Wednesday to the discussion of a private Bill, will the Leader of the House assure us that the Bill that will be discussed will be a private Bill and that he will not be party to a meeting such as that between the Secretary of State for Transport and the outside promoter of the private Bill which became the Associated British Ports Act? We found out later that there had been collusion between the Secretary of State for Transport and that promoter. Will it really be a private Bill or will it, once again, be a front for the Government?
Mr. Wakeham: I reject entirely the hon. Gentleman's allegations in respect of my right hon. Friend. The question of private Bills is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means. I am quite sure that he will see to it that all proper matters are dealt with.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend find time during the next week, or before the summer recess, for an additional Opposition day, bearing in mind the almost total lack of interest in yesterday's debate, with only 12 Labour Members of Parliament being present for the wind-up after the Rowntree debate and even fewer than that for the wind-up after the following debate?
Mr. Wakeham: I am glad to be able to assist my hon. Friend. I am sure that I shall be able to find time for an Opposition day before the summer recess, but I am not responsible for what they choose to debate or for how many Opposition Members decide to come and listen. That is a matter for them.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Could we have a debate next week, or at an early opportunity, on the National Audit Commission's report on the Property Services Agency? Then we could debate that organisation's autocratic and bureaucratic decision to stop the cross-Bradford rail link that would have been a boost for
996
Bradford and Bradford railway services. The local passenger transport authority and the local authority want a cross-Bradford rail link to link the interchange and Bradford Forster square. A debate on the National Audit Commission's report would provide an opportunity for an investigation.
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a debate next week on that matter, but I have no doubt that with his customary ingenuity he will find a way to raise matters that he believes to be of concern.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing number of problems that face civil aviation, one of Britain's most successful industries from air safety to airport capacity, from the deregulation of European air services to the computer reservation systems that are currently being studied by the Select Committee on Transport? He will no doubt be aware of the fact that many decisions on these problems will be taken by Ministers and the Civil Aviation Authority before the end of the year, without any need for primary legislation. Is it not very important, therefore, for the House to have an opportunity to debate civil aviation before the summer recess?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that considerable changes are taking place in the civil aviation industry and that it would be appropriate for the House to debate them. At this time of the year it is difficult to find days for additional debates. I am sorry that I cannot be more forthcoming about when that time can be provided.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Reverting to the Housing Bill that is to be considered on three days next week, is the Leader of the House aware that not only were four important new clauses tabled last night but that one of them, new clause 47, has the novelty of being applicable, after Royal Assent, as from today? Is this not an unusual procedure? As the Leader of the House has said that there will be discussions with the usual channels, will he withdraw his decision that consideration will be completed next Wednesday?
Mr. Wakeham: No, I cannot undertake to do that at all. I thought that I was being helpful. The time allocated for the Bill is quite substantial. I recognise that there are some difficulties, and I have undertaken to have further discussions about those difficulties. However, I cannot undertake to say in advance what the conclusions of those discussions will be.
Sir John Farr: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has seen the announcement in today's papers about the intention of the Murdoch group, News International, to flood the country with satellite television by next year. Does he agree that the House should consider this matter and, in particular, how reasonable standards of decency and morality can be achieved and maintained when this happens, in a very short time?
Mr. Wakeham: I have seen the announcement. I should have thought that my hon. Friend would welcome the increased competition and consumer choice that the services will provide; indeed, he may well do so. As I said before, I hope that we shall be able to arrange a debate on broadcasting in general before too long, when no doubt some of these issues will be highly relevant.
Mr. Greville Janner: May we have a debate soon on the way in which many building societies and banks are blatantly in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in publishing misleading and confusing advertisements about mortgage interest rates? As that result of the mortgage war is wholly unacceptable, will the right hon. Gentleman refer the matter to the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs and seek from him an urgent statement to the House?
Mr. Wakeham: As I understand it, there are codes of practice and codes of conduct in these matters. If the hon. and learned Gentleman considers that he has evidence of improper practice perhaps he will let me have the information and I shall certainly see to it that my right hon. Friend considers it.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Having taken time to read the speech by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry yesterday in the Rowntree debate, will the Leader of the House invite the Attorney-General to come before the House? The Chancellor of the Duchy said that he had played the Rowntree takeover completely straight and that he certainly had not asked the Treasury Solicitor to approach the trustees of the Rowntree Trust. Someone must have done; somebody interfered. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Attorney-General to come before the House and explain who exactly put the Treasury Solicitor up to interfering in the takeover bid?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that I can add anything to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy said yesterday. I shall draw to his attention the point made by the hon. Gentleman and leave it to him to decide how best to deal with the matter.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that issues concerning the implementation of the Single European Act in 1992 are now being discussed in the EEC, including the questions of monetary union and a central bank? Is he further aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday sent to the Select Committee on European Legislation a discussion paper on those matters that should have been debated but which he intends to agree in the Council of Ministers before the House has had any chance to consider the underlying issues at stake? Does not my right hon. Friend consider that it is becoming more and more urgent that the House reconsider the way in which it examines European legislation?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that there has been some concern in the House about the way in which legislation has sometimes not been considered as it was intended to be considered. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) have been to see me about these matters. A number of EC issues are to be debated next week. I am trying to improve the situation and I shall look into the matter to which my hon. Friend refers.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 478, which deals with the hunting of deer by packs of dogs?
[That this House deplores the increasing frequency of incidents and damage arising from the hunting of deer with packs of dogs; notes the overwhelming public opinion in
998
support of the abolition of, 'his unnecessary practice; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce early legislation to give deer the same basic protection from cruelty as domestic and captive animals currently receive under the terms of the Protection of Animals Act 1911.]
We seek the introduction of legislation to ensure that deer are dealt with in the same way as captive and domestic animals and to give them the same rights. The early-day motion has broad support in the House and carries 132 signatures. As well as signatures of representatives of the two major political parties, it carries signatures from one of the two alliance parties—if that is not a contradiction in terms—and from the two nationalist and three Ulster Unionist parties. Will time be provided for a debate?
Mr. Wakeham: Wild deer are already protected by the provisions of the Deer Acts 1963 and 1980, which provide safeguards against abuse by poachers and against unnecessary suffering. We have no plans to introduce further legislation.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: May I, too, refer my right hon. Friend to the Prime Minister's excellent and stirring answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), in which she said in absolute terms that our citizens ought to be treated equally, irrespective of their class, sex or race? Will my right hon. Friend allow time urgently for a debate to allow the Prime Minister to explain how she squares that with the doctrine of positive discrimination enforced by her Government in the teaching of ethnic languages in schools, the allocation of building contracts in the public sector in inner-city areas and her proposals for employment in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Wakeham: When my right hon. Friend made her statement, I think that she was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have no plans for a debate on that matter next week.
Mr.Max Madden: May I press the Leader of the House on the subject of the promised debate on foreign affairs? May I ask that the motion be drafted to allow the House a debate about recent events in Pakistan so that we may call on President Zia to hold elections to the national assembly before 29 August and warn him that the reintroduction of powers would have serious implications and create serious difficulties in relationships between the United Kingdom and Pakistan? Will the Leader of the House give such an assurance?
Mr. Wakeham: I certainly give an assurance that I shall have discussions through the usual channels about the form of the debate so that widespread agreement can be reached as to its basis. If we have a wide debate, no doubt the hon. Gentleman will be able then to raise the points that concern him.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Before the recess, will my right hon. Friend arrange a further debate on the Civil Service to enable hon. Members such as myself whose constituencies are under threat from excessive development to urge the Government to show a lead with a massive relocation of civil servants away from Whitehall? That would benefit the economy in the south-east and in the regions and would offer better value for money to the taxpayer, who funds the Civil Service.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that this is a big issue of concern to a number of my hon. Friends. I cannot promise an early debate, but I note that the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, who is responsible for the Civil Service, will be answering questions on Monday and it may be possible for my hon. Friend to raise the matter then.
Mr. Graham Allen: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the distribution of butter and beef which is surplus to requirements in the EEC, especially in view of the failure of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to issue tenders for the distribution and packaging of both those commodities?
Will the right hon. Gentleman sponsor my Bill to make the code of practice for publicans and tenants statutory so that Scottish and Newcastle Breweries does not evict 35 tenants in my constituency over the next few weeks?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is a persuasive arguer, but he has not persuaded me that I should necessarily sponsor his Bill. I shall refer the other matter to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the widespread admiration of President Reagan's work for peace and for Anglo-American relations? May we have an early opportunity to discuss a suitable high honour for him?
Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure how best the House should proceed in these matters. I certainly recognise the President's contribution to world peace and I shall perhaps talk to my hon. Friend about what he has in mind.
Mr. Alan Meale: Has the Leader of the House noted the large number of early-day motions dealing with badger protection—in particular early-day motions 843, 1091 and 1173?
[That this House notes with concern that Her Majesty's Government has no plans at present to legislate for the protection of badger setts; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to initiate suitable amendments to the Badger Act 1973 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1987 so as to afford protection to badger setts as a matter of urgency.]
[That this House condemns the practice of badger baiting in Britain; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to protect their setts.]
[That this House condemns the abhorrent practice of badger baiting, as recently depicted on the Central Television programme, The Cook Report, and calls on the Government to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to protect badger setts, increase magistrates' courts' powers to impose heavier fines on convicted offenders, consider increasing the maximum prison sentences for the offence from six months to two years for persistent offenders and make liable those landowners whose employees in pursuit of their employment deliberately kill badgers or disturb setts on their land.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a recent television programme dealing with the matter showed quite clearly that this abhorrent practice regularly occurs in Britain? Will he find time for a debate on this practice so that we may see an end to it as quickly as possible?
Mr. Wakeham: The Government share the abhorrence expressed in early-day motion 1173 but doubt whether additional measures could reasonably be taken that would significantly increase the protection already afforded to badgers under the existing law.
Mr. John Battle: May I respectfully request the Leader of the House to reconsider his answers to my hon. Friends about the Housing Bill? That Bill was considered for a long time in Committee, longer than the poll tax Bill and longer than the Education Reform Bill but, at the eleventh hour, over 160 Government amendments have been tabled. Yesterday, guidelines were published transferring local authority housing to the private sector, which undercut provisions in the Bill.
The impression is being created that the Bill is being marginalised in terms of the debate in the House by being put on at the tail-end of Monday's business and, as a result, there will not be sufficient time properly to consider the provisions that the Government have now brought before the House. May I ask the Leader of the House at least to reconsider the timetable, or preferably withdraw the Bill, even at this late stage, until the Government have a coherent policy?
Mr. Wakeham: I told the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends that I would have further discussions. I hope that he does not want me to reconsider that, because I would have thought that that was a helpful response. That is the way forward, and there is nothing more that I can add to what I have already said.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Did the Leader of the House hear the Speaker yesterday respond to me when I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment to come to the House to be questioned on the new planning procedures as they affect opencast mining applications up and down the country? Since the Leader of the House has an aversion to the earthmoving equipment trampling all over his constituency, perhaps he will understand why there are serious objections to large-scale opencast mining applications being allowed on the basis of new criteria on marketing and commercial viability.
Will the Leader of the House ask the Scretary of State for the Environment to answer questions on this matter and organise a debate so that everybody can take part? Will he point out to the Secretary of State that if the planning application system is allowed to carry on it will result in large incursions into green belt planning procedures and will be used in all sorts of ways up and down the country?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will answer any questions that it is proper for him to answer, if the hon. Gentleman tables them. I notice that there may be a debate on Monday and, with the hon. Gentleman's customary ingenuity, he might be able to get a speech in order that would enable him to express his concerns.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Lord President of the Council give us a guarantee that, in the debate next week on pollution caused by combustion, it will be possible to discuss the pollution caused by the combustion of toxic waste, especially in view of the threat of hundreds of tonnes of toxic waste from Switzerland, which has been rejected by almost every country in Europe and Africa, being brought to Re-Chem in Pontypool? If

1001
that is not possible, will he give a guarantee that in the near future we will be able to discuss the matter raised by the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) that waste already at Pontypool has come from more than a dozen countries and that we are importing some of the deadliest substances known to mankind for incineration in a way which, if it became defective, would present a great peril? Is it right that Britain is becoming the dustbin for the waste that the rest of the world has rejected?
Mr. Wakeham: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to get the points he wants to make in order for the debate next week. Whether he can do so is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, not for me. If he does that, the rest of his question is hypothetical.
Mr. Ian McCartney: Will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will bring forward at an early opportunity the final draft regulations, originally announced in February, for the banning of standard polyurethane and high resilience foams? Will he give a further assurance that the regulations will take account of the phasing out and banning of the sale of secondhand furniture containing dangerous materials with toxic fumes that will kill and incinerate people within three minutes? It is essential that the proposals are brought before the House before the summer recess so that by February next year it will be a criminal offence to sell such obnoxious products. There are still companies on the high street advertising combustion-modified foam as a safe foam when the Government have already announced that it will be a criminal offence to sell such foams. That is a highly irresponsible act especially when, as I have said, it will be a criminal offence by February of next year.
Mr. Wakeham: I give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider the points made and all the representations made to him on this important subject. At this stage I cannot give him a firm undertaking about when the orders will be laid.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would it not be educative next week for the Leader of the House's colleagues no less than mine if, in the light of early-day motions 1142 and 1156 and in the light of Robert Harris's full-page article in Sunday's The Observer, to have a debate on how No. 10 Downing street now operates? In particular, would it not be helpful to have an explanation next week as to why, on 17 May, the Secretary of State for Education and Science threw a protective smoke-screen around the role of No. 10 Downing street and resorted, uncharacteristically for him, to carefully considered personal abuse and, as transpires from the unchallenged leak of his Civil Service brief, to what looks like calculated deceit of the House?
1002
[That this House notes that the Guardian of Friday 20th May carried an article entitled 'Thatcher's boy in a cleft stick', which stated that according to Foreign Office sources 'Mr. Charles Powell wants Washington or Paris nothing less, but he's not going to get either of them', and that Mr. Powell had been offered and turned down the post of Ambassador in Stockholm, and that the article added `Powell has another string to his bow he knows where the bodies are buried in the Westland Affair. He escaped appearing before a Select Committee, but not their sharpest criticism for his orchestrating role in the leaking of a letter from the then Solicitor General, which ultimately resulted in the then Secretary of State for Defence's resignation'; expresses its concern that knowledge of wrong-doing by the Prime Minister is alleged to put Mr. Powell in a position to obtain an Embassy more senior than his status warrants; asserts that this is not in keeping with the high moral ground claimed by the Prime Minister; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to make a statement.]
[That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to set up an inquiry into the SAS operation in Gibraltar, to address itself to the questions as to whether the Joint Intelligence Staff, through its current intelligence groups, was responsible for preparing assessments of the situation in Spain and Gibraltar prior to the shooting, if so, as to how many assessments were made and on what days, as to whether the Joint Intelligence Committee, in any form, considered these or other assessments or reports on the matter, if so, as to when it did so and whether it was as a full committee, a sub-committee or by the chairman alone, as to whom advice was offered by the Joint Intelligence Committee, as to whether the Permanent Secretaries' Committee on the Intelligence Services was involved in considering or formulating assessments or advice, and, if so, on what occasions, as to on what occasions advice or assessments were offered to the Prime Minister by the Permanent Secretaries' Committee on the Intelligence Services, the Joint Intelligence Committee, MI5 or Sir Colin Figures, as to who, or which committee, proposed the use of the SAS, as to whether the SAS was ordered to operate in Gibraltar under pre-existing rules of engagement, or as to whether specific Rules of Engagement were drawn up, as to on what occasions, in the 72 hours prior to the shooting, the Prime Minister was apprised of the sequence of events in Gibraltar, and on what occasions, over the same period she issued instructions or agreed actions in relation to the events, and as to what consultation she undertook with the Overseas Policy and Defence Committee of the Cabinet.]
Mr. Wakeham: I believe that the business I have announced for debate next week will be a more profitable use of the House's time than the suggestions made by the hon. Gentleman, in a spirit of helpfulness.

Orders of the Day

  Housing Bill
  [First Day]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  4.16 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to consider as carefully as you are able the way in which the Government are legislating on the hoof? There are no fewer than 183 new clauses or amendments being added to the Bill, many of them at short notice. I accept that some are in response to our requests in Committee, but that is not a good enough reason for introducing completely new measures that were not even debated in Committee.
  It is extremely important because, as you will know, Mr. Speaker, Standing Committees are set up to look into the way in which legislation is made, not just in areas of disagreement but in areas of agreement. The idea behind that has always been that the Committee procedure should lead to detailed investigation so that we achieve better legislation and avoid the danger of unintended consequences, which is a common problem in the House. In spite of that, some important changes are being made to the Bill.
  A social landlord charter has been announced and it was supposed to be debated in the House. It was announced yesterday by the Minister in a speech. I have still not received a copy of that speech, even though his office told me that it would send me one. The Government have also announced that another amendment on housing associations will be introduced, even while the Bill is on Report. That amendment will affect security of tenure, the tenants' charter and the right-to-buy for housing associations. That has not even been mentioned in the House but it is apparently to be introduced.
  An entirely new part of the Bill is being announced on Report involving a housing corporation for Wales. I am not opposed to that, but, as you will have seen, Mr. Speaker, the legislation involved is complex and detailed. There was no explanation in Committee from the Secretary of State for Wales and we did not have a Welsh representative on the Opposition Front Bench, although there was a Back-Bench Member from Wales representing each party.
  This is not the way to legislate. In the amendments and new clauses the Government are changing legislation that is passing through the House. For example, they refer to the Housing (Scotland) Act, but that measure is not yet an Act of Parliament.
  New clause 47 would dispose of council housing stock and undermine clause 4 of the Bill. It would have a dramatic effect on homelessness but, above all—I place great emphasis on this—it is retrospective legislation. The new clause takes effect from 9 June 1988—today. We shall not be debating it until next week. The Minister cannot claim that it is a new measure because the other day he put in the Table Office a document of about seven or eight pages which states what it is intended to do. Clearly, the Government have been thinking about it for some time, but this is the first time that we have had news of it.
  1004
  I am sorry to delay the House, but it is an important point of order. It is so important to the procedures of the House that we felt it essential to bring it to your notice, Mr. Speaker, to put pressure on the Government to stop them legislating on the hoof. If they cannot get their act together and decide who is the housing Minister, they should give more time to ensure that we have a Housing Bill that meets the needs of our people.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to allow me to deal with the matter. I have not selected the motion for recommittal for debate and I listened to what the Leader of the House had to say about the matter. I am sympathetic to the points and requests for more time made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), but it would be best to proceed today and see how we get on next week in terms of time.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Our concern about the late appearance of substantial new clauses and amendments is that it is impossible for Oppostition parties or Government Back Benchers to table further amendments in the knowledge of what the Government are doing. We are likely to be caught by the publishing tomorrow of amendments that the Government wish to introduce—whether it be by press release or in other documents—to amend major parts of the Bill that will be debated later. There will be no opportunity for us to debate those amendments because the time allocated for such debate will have passed.
  At the beginning of the Report stage there is a proposal that the Bill should not follow the usual order of debate. It is proposed that it be taken in the sequence of the Bill rather than in the sequence of new clauses—starting with Government new clauses—and amendments to them. I have heard that the reason for that may be that the Government believe that, by delaying consideration of a new clause or amendment, they may be able to defeat a proposal from their own Back Benchers that they do not wish to take early on. Whatever the reasons, the lack of opportunity for ordinary Back Benchers to reconsider matters, and the fact that matters have taken an unexpected turn today, mean that there is additional reason for asking, in the presence of the Leader of the House, for reconsideration of the timetable.
  We could deal with certain matters today—I do not believe that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) dissents from that—and there should be a further delay so that we know exactly what the Government intend before we consider the Bill further.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Are the points of order concerned with the same matter? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I shall take them, but I ask hon. Members to make brief points of order because I doubt if they are points of order for me but questions of time for the Bill.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said that a number of the amendments refer to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988, which does not exist. The Housing (Scotland) Bill has yet to have its Report stage in another place.

  1005
  May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to one or two new clauses and amendments that have been tabled by Ministers? New clause 47 includes not only the Secretary of State for the Environment but the Secretary of State for Scotland and specifically amends Scottish housing legislation. As the Housing (Scotland) Bill is before the House, it is open to the Government to amend that Bill on Report in another place and for us to consider those Lords amendments. Is it in order for the Government to use this ostensibly English—and now Welsh—Bill to deal with Scottish housing legislation?
  Mr. Speaker: There is no time limit on the Bill, so it would be sensible for hon. Members to put their questions to the Minister when we reach the amendments or new clauses. I cannot give explanations; that is a matter for the Government to answer.
  Mr. Barry Jones: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend made some important remarks regarding Wales. New schedule 240 is 180 lines long and new schedule 241 is 400 lines long. Why has this arrogant, high-handed attitude been taken to Wales, and is it not wrong to spring this complicated matter on the House?
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as the guardian of Back Benchers' rights, to consider my point of order regarding the issuance of the Government's guidelines on the large-scale voluntary transfer of local housing. In Committee in the first week of March, I specifically asked the Minister for Housing and Planning about the Government's response to the initiatives of Cardiff city council and C5mgor Bwrdeistref Ynys Môn in relation to the large-scale voluntary transfer of housing associations. The Minister said that it was purely for local authorities to make their bids. There was no mention in Committee of the possibility of the Government issuing a guideline document. How can it be right for the Government in Committee to table amendments on matters that were first raised by the press? If there was no possibility of debating the matter then, how can we debate it now when the document was issued only last night—the day before the Report stage?
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a convention of the constitution that Parliament strives to avoid retrospective legislation where possible, although there might be odd occasions when it is necessary. It is up to you, Mr. Speaker, to bear that in mind when you make your selection, as I am sure you do.
  The Housing Finance (Special Provisions) Act 1975 proposed to give retrospective support to Clay Cross councillors. You, Mr. Speaker, may recall that Conservative Members stood up in unison and said that retrospective legislation was terrible and was the slippery slope on the road to Fascism. It is proposed that new clause 47 will be effective from today, but it will not be debated until next week and will not receive Royal Assent for several weeks. The Bill, therefore, is bound to be retrospective in that clause alone. The way in which the Government have tabled it shows that they are deliberately proposing retrospective legislation, which is unnecessary. This is a narrow and shadowy matter, but should not the conventions of the constitution be given consideration? Will you, Mr. Speaker, assure the House that, with
  1006
  retrospective legislation, you give consideration to preserving the constitution and preventing us from sliding down what Conservative Members described 14 years ago as the slippery slope to Fascism?
  Mr. Speaker: When the hon. Gentleman looks at my selection he will see that I have born those matters very much in mind. The selection has been generous.
  Mr. Ian Gow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is self-evident that there is an exceptional number of Government amendments, Government new clauses and new schedules. You, Mr. Speaker, did not have the advantage of serving on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. Many of the amendments appear in response to a number of suggestions made by Labour Members. Can you confirm that all the amendments and all the new clauses and schedules tabled by the Government are perfectly in order in terms of the time limit laid down by Standing Orders? Does it not lie ill on the lips of the Opposition to protest about the tabling of amendments, new clauses and schedules which have all been tabled precisely within the time limit?
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Speaker: I did not have the advantage of serving on the Committee. I understand that some of the amendments are concessions. Some other matters are perhaps new to the Bill, and that was the point raised earlier with the Leader of the House. He has said that he will again look at the matter of timing. I do not think that there is much more we can do about that now.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no time limit on the amendments and when the Minister comes to them he could be asked about what they mean and could give his explanation in the ordinary way. It is not a matter for me to answer.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I have two points of order, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps I could ask you to dispose of the first before I put the second. I was not a member of the Standing Committee. I have served on many Standing Committees that adjourned when statements were made outside the House by Ministers about prospective new clauses. You will know that today there appeared in the Vote Office what purports to be a White Paper about new clauses tabled last night and in particular new clause 47. This means that after Monday we will not be able to table amendments to new clause 47. Therefore the notice for consideration of these matters is short.
  I understand what you, Mr. Speaker, have said about what the Leader of the House said. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has properly used his procedural rights to put down a motion that the whole Bill be recommitted to the Standing Committee. For reasons about which we can speculate but which, of course, we accept, you have not selected that. You will know that in "Erskine May" there is provision for the committal of part of a Bill. I could not have seen new clause 47 or its sisters, new clauses 45 and 46, until about 9 o'clock this morning, and I do not think that any other hon. Member could practically have been expected to do any better than that.

  1007
  For that reason it was not possible for me either to add my name to the motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith or to put down any other motion for today's Order Paper or today's sitting. Would it be in order and would you now consider, Mr. Speaker, a manuscript amendment that new clauses 44 to 47 be recommitted to the former Committee on the Housing Bill? If you feel that you cannot accept that, perhaps you could accept a manuscript amendment that new clause 47 be recommitted, partly because of its nature but particularly because of the retrospective effect from today that has already been well put to you by me and by my hon. Friends. That is my first point of order.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has said that he would like a ruling on that first. It would be in order to put down a motion but I would not accept a manuscript amendment today because, as the hon. Gentleman will see from the Order Paper, I have not yet selected the new clauses.
  Mr. Spearing: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With great respect, on page 2 of this very long selection list at the end of group 4 there is listed Government amendments Nos. 42 to 47—I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I incorrectly assumed that the selection list was for the whole of the debate on the Bill, but I see that it is for the first day only.
  Mr. Speaker: I think I can help the whole House. We should proceed with today's business. The Leader of the House has said that he will look at the timetable. I fully understand and I am sympathetic to the points being made about new clauses that have been put down fairly recently. However, the Leader of the House has said that he will look at that and there is nothing else that I can do now about the matter. In any case, we shall not reach them today.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Some of us who sat for 180 hours on the Housing Bill are celebrating our first anniversary in this place. During the past year the Government have shown an increasing tendency to misuse the Report stage as a Committee stage and to table amendments in a fashion that curtails the rights of Back Benchers. The issue is not simply about time but about the individual rights of hon. Members. I look to you, Mr. Speaker, to protect and safeguard those rights because we are thoroughly sick and tired of being misused and abused.
  I sat on the Committee for 180 hours—longer than the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) who turned up on occasions. We tried to persuade the Minister to deal with the matter and we did it in a way that should have given the Government an opportunity to improve the legislation.
  I was given categorical assurances about amendments that would improve the Bill and meet my feelings about it. The Government have chosen to ignore the guarantees given to me and to other Back Benchers. The issue is one of principle and it is for you, Mr. Speaker, to sort it out. If it is not sorted out, the Government will be given the green light to use between now and the end of this Session, the Report stage to abuse the House and the rights of hon. Members. For that reason I implore you to look at this matter and to give serious consideration to the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) who asked for the matter to be taken back to the
  1008
  Committee so that hon. Members such as I may have an opportunity to consider the amendments proposed by the Government and to protect our rights.
  Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask how the actual selection works? You have listened to the points made by my hon. Friends and you will clearly understand the distress that we feel. We were in a Committee that finished on 15 March and now find ourselves confronted by vast quantities of new clauses and amendments. Despite what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) says, those matters were not discussed in Committee and nor were they the subject of requests made by us.
  We accept that some of the amendments arise out of undertakings given by Ministers, but if the hon. Member for Eastbourne reads them he will see that many of them relate to completely new business. As I say, the Committee finished on 15 March and last night new business was still being tabled and a great wedge of clauses and new amendments came out on Tuesday. That does not give us a chance to operate effectively as an Opposition.
  When one looks at all the new Government business that is put forward, one sees that Report stages are not being treated like proper Report stages. We came back to the House to report the changes that we made to the Bill that went to Committee after Second Reading, but this is a completely new Committee stage. In many cases it will be treated by some hon. Members as a re-run of Second Reading since we will be discussing some fairly broad principles. When you see this happening, Mr. Speaker, and when you see the amendments that have been put down by the Government, surely you should say that you are not prepared to select these amendments on Report because as Mr. Speaker you are not giving the House a fair opportunity to consider these matters.
  Mr. Speaker: I am not having that. If the hon. Gentleman says that I should not select the amendments there is no opportunity for them to be debated. I am sure that he does not mean that. I have made a very generous selection and the hon. Gentleman has only to look at the selection list to know that that is true. I think that we should get on with these amendments, which have been tabled for some time.—[Interruption.] There is no argument about them. They have been tabled long enough for hon. Members to prepare their amendments and speeches.
  What we are concerned about and what I am concerned about is what will happen next week. The Leader of the House has already said that he will look into that.
  I am going to call the motion.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: On a point of order——
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: No. I must put the order of consideration motion.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That the Housing Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, Amendments relating to Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 7, Schedule 2, Clauses 8 to 22, Schedule 3, Clauses 23 to 37, Schedule 4, Clauses 38 to 43, New Clauses 25, 26 and 27, New Schedules 240 and 241, Amendments relating to Clauses 44 to 57, Schedules 5 and 6, Clauses 58 to 71, Schedule 7, Clauses 72 and 73, Schedule 8, Clause 74, Schedule 9, Clauses 75 to 99, Schedule 10, Clauses

  1009
  100 to 108, Schedule 11, Clauses 109 to 114, Schedule 12, Clauses 115, remaining New Clauses and New Schedules, Amendments relating to Schedules 13—[Mr. Ridley.]
  The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 176

  Division No. 345]

  [4.40 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Franks, Cecil

  Amess, David

  Freeman, Roger

  Amos, Alan

  French, Douglas

  Arbuthnot, James

  Fry, Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Gale, Roger

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Gardiner, George

  Ashby, David

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Gill, Christopher

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Baldry, Tony

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gorst, John

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Gow, Ian

  Bendall, Vivian

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gregory, Conal

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E")

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Boswell, Tim

  Grist, Ian

  Bottomley, Peter

  Ground, Patrick

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Bowis, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Hannam, John

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Harris, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Bright, Graham

  Hayes, Jerry

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hayward, Robert

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Heddle, John

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Holt, Richard

  Burns, Simon

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Butcher, John

  Howard, Michael

  Butler, Chris

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

  Butterfill, John

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Cash, William

  Hunter, Andrew

  Chapman, Sydney

  Irvine, Michael

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

  Irving, Charles

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Jack, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Janman, Tim

  Conway, Derek

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Couchman, James

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Cran, James

  Key, Robert

  Critchley, Julian

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Curry, David

  Knapman, Roger

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Day, Stephen

  Knowles, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Latham, Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lightbown, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lilley, Peter

  Dover, Den

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Dunn, Bob

  McCrindle, Robert

  Durant, Tony

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Evennett, David

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Fallon, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Farr, Sir John

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Favell, Tony

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Maples, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Forth, Eric

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Maude, Hon Francis

  1010

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Steen, Anthony

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stern, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Moate, Roger

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

  Stokes, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Summerson, Hugo

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Neubert, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Page, Richard

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Pawsey, James

  Tracey, Richard

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Tredinnick, David

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Trotter, Neville

  Price, Sir David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Redwood, John

  Viggers, Peter

  Renton, Tim

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Riddick, Graham

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Waller, Gary

  Rost, Peter

  Walters, Dennis

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Ryder, Richard

  Watts, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Wells, Bowen

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wheeler, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wilshire, David

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shersby, Michael

  Woodcock, Mike

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Yeo, Tim

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Speller, Tony

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Squire, Robin

  Mr. Peter Lloyd and Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Clay, Bob

  Allen, Graham

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Alton, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ashton, Joe

  Cousins, Jim

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Crowther, Stan

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Cryer, Bob

  Barron, Kevin

  Cummings, John

  Battle, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Beckett, Margaret

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Bell, Stuart

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Darling, Alistair

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Blair, Tony

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

  Boateng, Paul

  Dewar, Donald

  Boyes, Roland

  Dixon, Don

  Bradley, Keith

  Dobson, Frank

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Eastham, Ken

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Buchan, Norman

  Fearn, Ronald

  Buckley, George J.

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Caborn, Richard

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Canavan, Dennis

  Foster, Derek

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Galbraith, Sam

  1011

  Galloway, George

  Mitchell, Austin (G'f Grimsby)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  George, Bruce

  Morley, Elliott

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Gould, Bryan

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Graham, Thomas

  Mullin, Chris

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Nellist, Dave

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  O'Brien, William

  Grocott, Bruce

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Patchett, Terry

  Henderson, Doug

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hinchliffe, David

  Prescott, John

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Home Robertson, John

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hood, Jimmy

  Radice, Giles

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Randall, Stuart

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Howells, Geraint

  Reid, Dr John

  Hoyle, Doug

  Richardson, Jo

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Robertson, George

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Rogers, Allan

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Illsley, Eric

  Ruddock, Joan

  Ingram, Adam

  Salmond, Alex

  Janner, Greville

  Sedgemore, Brian

  John, Brynmor

  Sheerman, Barry

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Short, Clare

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Leighton, Ron

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Soley, Clive

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Loyden, Eddie

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  McAllion, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Stott, Roger

  McCartney, Ian

  Strang, Gavin

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Straw, Jack

  McKelvey, William

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McLeish, Henry

  Vaz, Keith

  Maclennan, Robert

  Wall, Pat

  McTaggart, Bob

  Wallace, James

  Madden, Max

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Marek, Dr John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Winnick, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Worthington, Tony

  Maxton, John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Alun Michael.

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  Housing Bill
    Schedule 1

      TENANCIES WHICH CANNOT BE ASSURED TENANCIES
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 75, line 41, at end insert—
      '(2) The reference in sub-paragraph (1) above to the case where the interest of the landlord belongs to Her Majesty in right of the Crown does not include the case where that interest is under the management of the Crown Estate Commissioners.'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 61.
      Mr. Grist: Both are straightforward amendments. Properties let by the Crown Estates Commissioners, like those let by the Chancellors of the Duchies of Cornwall
      1012
      and Lancaster, are to be brought within the scope of the assured tenancy regime although Crown properties are, of course, generally outside the scope of the Bill. The Crown Estate Commissioners and the Duchies were brought within the scope of the Rent Act 1977 by the Housing Act 1980. The Duchies' interests are already covered by clause 43. Government amendment No. 9 applies the assured tenancy regime to lettings by the Crown Estate Commissioners.
      Government amendment No. 61 is a technical amendment. As the Duchy of Lancaster will be letting on assured tenancies, it is necessary to deem that the Chancellor of the Duchy shall be the owner of Her Majesty's interests for the purpose of those tenancies. That is because Her Majesty cannot be sued in the event that legal action should arise. I am sure that hon. Members will accept that the amendments are uncontroversial and necessary.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The amendments are uncontroversial in one sense, but it would be convenient if the Minister could tell the House how many properties are affected in England, Scotland and Wales, because for the people in question the amendments are clearly important although the percentage of the total stock that is affected is small. How many properties and tenants are we talking about?
      Mr. Grist: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman off the cuff but I shall certainly try to find out the answer for him.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have just had a vote on the order of consideration motion, but the Minister cannot answer the first question that he has been asked about the first amendment. It is an absolute shambles—[interruption.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. Answers given by Ministers have nothing to do with the Chair. We now come to Government amendment No. 70——
      Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you are aware, a considerable number of points of order were raised with Mr. Speaker about the generally unsatisfactory nature of the Bill as it comes to the House on Report, and about the late tabling of amendments. Many of my hon. Friends have made the point that the House as a whole is now being expected to give Committee stage consideration to these amendments rather than the normal Report stage reconsideration. It seems farcical that we are faced with a situation in which an hon. Member, not of my party, asks a perfectly reasonable question about the number of tenancies affected by the very first amendment but the Minister apparently does not have the faintest idea. That seems to reduce our proceedings to a farce. The object should be to allow hon. Members to find out the background, the justification and how many people are involved—[Interruption.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
      Several Hon. Members rose——
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I can deal with this. I understand the frustration felt by hon. Members, but I must remind the House that the Chair is

      1013
      not responsible for answers given by Ministers. Perhaps the point that has been made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) from the Opposition Dispatch Box has gone home to those in all parts of the House. We must now proceed with Government amendment No. 70.
      Mr. Paul Boateng rose——
      Mr. McCartney rose——
      Ms. Dawn Primarolo rose——
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I call the Minister to move Government amendment No. 70.
      Ms. Primarolo: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Opposition Members raised earlier with Mr. Speaker the point that new information is before us and that, as Back Benchers, we have been unable to consider that information properly in order to debate the Bill. Mr. Speaker advised us that Ministers would answer our questions during the debate. However, on the very first amendment and on the very first question asked, the Minister told us—he was not even on the Committee— that he could not answer the question. What faith can we have in the proceedings on the rest of the Bill?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: The House cannot go on rehearsing and repeating points which have already been made and which, in effect, are not points of order. We must now proceed with the amendments, which, I repeat, have been before the House and all its Members for some time. It would be to the advantage of everybody concerned to proceed with the amendments.
      Mr. Tony Banks rose——
      Mr. Boateng: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I appreciate your predicament in this matter and do not seek to go beyond your rulings but I am bound to say that in Committee we were used to the somewhat cursory comments from the Front Bench of the Minister of State's acolyte who never departed from her script. Much of the Bill that we considered in Committee has been dispensed with—like, apparently, the services of the Minister who considered the matter in Committee. Is it really in order for this matter to be dealt with by the Minister of State's new acolyte in this way? We ask ourselves, "Where is Marion Roe?"
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's sympathy for the Chair, but I assure him that I am in no predicament. I call the Minister to move Government amendment No. 70.
      Mr. Grist: I beg to move amendment No. 70, in page 76, line 14, at end insert—
      `(cc) the Broads Authority'
      I was going to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is that the lettings are for the future so the number is hypothetical anyway.
      The Broads Authority was established for the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads earlier this year. For housing purposes it is treated as a local authority. It is intended that its small housing stock should he let on secure tenancies, not
      1014
      assured tenancies. The amendment adds the Broads Authority to the list of bodies in schedule 1, the lettings of which cannot be assured tenancies.
      Mr. Soley: We are glad to know that the tenancies will not be shorthold tenancies in that context. However, in view of the Minister's unfortunate contribution to the debate so far, I advise him that the whole essence of this afternoon has been the Government's inability to get their act together in relation to the Bill. We need detailed answers, given that to some extent the Government seem to have accepted that the Bill is now being drafted on the Floor of the House. Let me put the Government on notice that we expect to have answers to reasonable questions. We do not expect to have dismissive answers. If, in some circumstances understandably, the Minister does not have a complex answer to hand, we expect to hear from the Minister and to be given an answer in due course. Otherwise, the Bill will not only be an appalling mess, but it will be a very long and very bitter, nasty mess.
      5 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: On what should be relatively short and uncomplicated matters, the figures are very important. In the same schedule, one of the excepted authorities is the Inner London education authority. The House might believe that the ILEA owns no houses apart from those lived in by school teachers, but that is not correct. Several people who are tenants of the ILEA live near me. It was several months, if not years, before I could discover how many properties in Southwark and Bermondsey not attached to school or education premises were owned by the ILEA. The amendment does not concern my constituency. It is about the Broads. None the less, I am sure that the same question is relevant. How many people will be affected by being in one category of tenancy rather than another? The whole debate is about what tenancies and what rights people will have.
      Like the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), I hope that whenever we consider proposals—they are all new Government amendments—to put into the Bill or take out of the Bill a category of housing we shall be told how many properties are involved. However small the geographical area, it is a fundamental change for the people in question. Repeatedly in the Bill we have discussed what for many tenants will be the most fundamental change in their status relative to their landlords since the war. I ask again, and I give notice that I will do so on each similar amendment, how many properties and how many tenants are involved.
      Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: It may come as a surprise, but I have not always agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As I understand the Bill, and as I understand what the hon. Member for Hammesmith (Mr. Soley) said when he talked about 99 if not 100 concessions being made, the concessions which many of us have heard about today are profound concessions that hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome. Surely those concessions were made because the Secretary of State and his team listened to what has been said and listened to the worries that people have had. That will make it a better Bill.
      Is it not right that, even if the Opposition do not like the Bill, it is the will of the country and the will of the Government that the Bill will prevail in the end" Is it not

      1015
      their task to see that it is a better Bill and to discuss the very proper concessions that have been made? Are we not better to move on in that attitude, instead of in the manner of people who think that they still run the country when they do not?
      Mr. Allan Roberts: The assumption is being made that the amendment that we are now considering and the other Government amendments that have been tabled, some at great length, are the result of concessions granted to the Opposition. In Committee we were granted a large number of concessions, or given assurances about a large number of matters, which we saw as concessions.
      The great tragedy for us, and for people in this country, is that the Government amendments, new clauses and new schedules do not reflect the concessions and undertakings given in Committee. If they did, we would be very happy and we would not be complaining. However, they are quite different. They represent the Government's rewriting of the legislation and the final gestation of a dispute between Ministers and civil servants in the Department of the Environment. It is obvious from the length of time between finishing Committee and reaching Report and the panic over the way that the Government have tabled amendments that there have been major problems in the Department of the Environment which have resulted in amendments being tabled in a way that treats the House with contempt. As we discuss Government amendment after Government amendment, the Opposition will point out how concessions which seemed to be granted and agreed in Committee have been ratted on and we shall table amendments to make sure that the Government's promises in Committee are put before the House in the form of Opposition amendments.
      Mr. McCartney: I should like to ask the Minister a question about his statement. I heard him say that the Broads Authority will be treated like a local authority. At about 8 o'clock this morning I received a copy of what loosely could be called a White Paper entitled:
      "Large Scale Voluntary Transfers of Local Authority Housing to Private Bodies".
      I had a cursory look at it. Will the Minister confirm that the Broads Authority will be treated like a local authority and will be included in the concepts set out in that White Paper? If so, has the Broads Authority been advised of the contents of the White Paper and what procedure will be used to consult the tenants of the Broads Authority in respect of the possibility of their homes being transferred to the private sector by the Broads Authority?
      Mr. Spearing: I was not a member of the Committee and therefore I approach these matters as an amateur. That does not mean that the Minister does not have the responsibility to make things absolutely clear. As I understand it, an assured tenancy is a new form of legal tenure which has much less security for the tenant than he has at the moment. Even what is described as a secure tenancy in another part of the Bill is not as secure as such tenancies are at the moment.
      I understand that schedule 1, to which the amendment applies, defines tenancies which cannot be assured tenancies. Therefore, I assume that they are tenancies which, whatever happens to the property, will remain
      1016
      secure tenancies whether they remain with a local authority or whether the local authority disposes of them in the way in which the Government wish.
      The amendment is adding to the list of local authorities, on page 76 of the Bill, the Broads Authority, which does not yet exist. The House has passed a Bill creating the new Broads Authority. Informal discussions are taking place, and I believe that the county clerk of Norfolk county council is about to call a number of meetings in which policies are to be discussed and the authority will take over next year.
      If the Broads Authority is added to the list and becomes a local authority for the purposes of the Bill, presumably it will be subject to the Government's policy of disposal, including the policy of disposal encapsulated in new clause 47 which is on the list of amendments and is therefore important in the debate. Will the Minister tell me whether I am correct in saying that, by adding to tenancies that cannot be assured the tenancies of the future Broads authority, if that authority used the future facilities of the Bill, it could sell off property? Indeed, the Government say that the future Broads Authority, inheriting tenancies and ownership of property, can, if it wishes, come to an arrangement with another landlord under new clause 47, or with anyone else, and sell it off. Therefore, they say, if it is sold it must retain secure tenancies and not assured tenancies.
      Is the Minister saying that the servants of the Broads Authority—which has hardly got going, and which is an important new authority in the administration of a novel sort of national park—who will be in occupation of property, the ownership of which will be visited on the Broads Authority, might have their property sold under them? The implication is that, although that may happen, they will remain secure tenants, but the property will he sold. In answering this short debate, which may be less important than others, will the Minister say whether that is correct?
      Does the Minister envisage that the Broads Authority will be able to sell or to transfer tenancies to charitable organisations as defined in new clause 47? If that were the case, tenants would remain secure, but the ownership would be transferred.
      Mr. Grist: For housing purposes the Broads Authority is treated like a local authority, so it comes under exactly the same rules as a local authority. In the terms of this small amendment, these tenants are secure tenants and the terms of the amendment mean that they remain so. I would have thought that that would be welcomed by Opposition Members.
      Mr. George Howarth: Will the Minister answer the question put by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes): how many tenants and properties will be affected by this?
      Mr. Grist: I said "few" when I opened this little debate.
      Amendment agreed to.
      The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 77, line 17, leave out 'sub-paragraph' and insert `paragraph'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 11 to 13.
      Mr. Waldegrave: These are intricate amendments relating to the resident landlord provisions of the Bill. They derive from a particular case, about which there has been regular correspondence since 1974 between a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) and the Department.
      Lettings by resident landlords—that is, people who let part of their homes—are not assured tenancies. Under the Bill they are not subject to statutory security of tenure or to rent control. Many of these restrictions were removed as long ago as 1980. Paragraphs 18 to 20 of schedule I ensure that a letting which has been made by a resident landlord does not become assured during certain periods when there there is no landlord in residence in the building.
      Amendment No. 11 covers the case in which there is a change of landlord, a new landlord gives notice that he intends to occupy the dwelling within six months or, within that period, another resident landlord moves in or the landlord's interest becomes vested either in trustees with the beneficiary moving into the dwelling or in the owner's personal representatives following his death. During the intermediate period, when no landlord is in residence, the tenancy does not become assured.
      Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 deal with the case when the landlord's interest is vested in trustees and the beneficiary under the trust who has been living in the dwelling dies. The tenancy will not become an assured tenancy in any period up to two years while the landlord's interest remains vested in trustees until a new beneficiary moves in.
      Mr. Allan Roberts: This seems to be an interesting but somewhat convoluted amendment.
      Mr. Waldegrave: That means that the hon. Gentleman does not understand it.
      Mr. Roberts: It means exactly that. That is why I am on my feet asking the Minister to explain it further so that we can decide whether we agree with it.[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) understands it, I will be surprised. What I do understand is that one of the proposals gets rid of the protection that might exist for some tenants who are living in property where the landlord is not resident.
      If I understood the Minister correctly, he said that if a house is sold with sitting tenants to a new landlord and the old landlord was not in residence, so the sitting tenants have security of tenure, the new landlord can give notice to the tenants that he intends to become a resident landlord in the house which he has purchased within six months, whereupon the tenants lose their security of tenure. That is one of the main thrusts of the amendment.
      Will the Minister confirm or deny that? If that is true, a strange position will be created. If a landlord who is not resident sells a house with sitting tenants and the new owner can get vacant possession, how is the property valued? Is it being sold with vacant possession, half vacant possession or sitting tenants? It will certainly make life difficult in terms of property prices and sales, and the security of tenure enjoyed by those who live in accommodation where there is no resident landlord.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I wish to make a short confession similar to that of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), but in relation to my notes on the amendments.
      1018
      The first one said, "technical" and the second, "probably technical". By the third one I could not work out whether it was technical, probably technical or neither.
      I heard what the Minister said, but he will accept that this is the sort of amendment which, if we have not understood it or its implications clearly before we hear his contribution, although we can understand the words, we do not necessarily understand the consequences. Would it be possible as a matter of practice, specifically in a Bill such as this to which there are many Government amendments and new clauses at this stage, to have the courtesy of notes on Government changes in the usual way, certainly for those who served on the Committee?
      Many individual constituency cases were raised in Committee which the Minister undertook to consider and do something about. Some came from his side and others from the Opposition. With a clear head and a slightly better opportunity to consider them, we may improve the Bill further. I do not pretend to know the answer, but I should be grateful for that opportunity if it is possible.
      Mr. Waldegrave: I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and I shall endeavour to ask my officials to produce a commentary on the Government amendments which I hope to put before the House at the earliest opportunity and which I hope will be helpful. I well understand his anxiety, because many of these issues are complex.
      I assure the House that many of these amendments seek to meet the points on which commitments were made. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) suffered from a different problem in Committee. It was not that I made commitments to him which I subsequently broke, but I refused to make any commitments to him except on one occasion at the end, when I made a concession which surprised him. Normally he was given the thin edge of the wedge.
      Mr. McCartney: On one occasion, when the Minister was not present to look after the Under-Secretary of State, she slipped up and gave me a further concession which I shall speak to on clause 14.
      Mr. Waldegrave: I do not want to disappoint the lion. Gentleman but I must point out that my hon. Friend is in Finland—[Interruption.]—which precludes any such repeat. She will doubtless return recreated by a better acquaintance than many of us with Finnish opera and other cultural events.
      These intricate amendments are aimed at a problem which has been brought to our attention over many years in a lengthy correspondence with a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), Mr. Bednar, and we are taking the opportunity to meet that small point.
      No one who has an assured tenancy will lose it as a result of these amendments. It is about circumstances in which the residence qualification is met by the resident being the beneficiary of a trust—that can be met under the present law—and in which, if the beneficiary dies, it may take some time before another beneficiary can move into the same position. That is covered by the legislation. It would be wrong if he suddenly lost the resident qualification. That would be a radical change in the present law.

      1019
      So it is a tidying up amendment. I apologise for its intricacy. I had to read it at least as many times as the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) before I could understand it. But I assure him that it does not have the implications that he feared.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 11, in page 77, line 26, leave out
      `the condition in paragraph 10(1)(c) again applies'
      and insert
      `that interest becomes again vested in such an individual as is mentioned in paragraph 10(1)(c) or the condition in that paragraph becomes deemed to be fulfilled by virtue of paragraph 19(1) or paragraph 20 below.'
      No. 12, in page 78, line 8, at end insert—
      '(2) If a period during which the condition in paragraph 10(1)(c) is deemed to be fulfilled by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above comes to an end on the death of a person who was in occupation of a dwelling-house as mentioned in paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph, then, in determining whether that condition is at any time thereafter fulfilled, there shall be disregarded any period—

      (a) which begins on the date of the death;

      (b) during which the interest of the landlord remains vested as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) above; and

      (c) which ends at the expiry of the period of two years beginning on the date of the death or on any earlier date on which the condition in paragraph 10(1)(c) becomes again deemed to be fulfilled by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above.'.

      No. 13, in page 78, line 16, after '18', insert 'or paragraph 19(2)'.

    Clause 6

      FIXING OF TERMS OF STATUTORY PERIODIC TENANCY
      Mr. Waldegrave: I beg to move amendment No. 72, in page 5, line 12, after 'landlord", insert 'or the tenant'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 73.
      Mr. Waldegrave: Clause 6, as hon. Members know, provides that, where a statutory periodic tenancy arises at the end of a contractual fixed-term tenancy, either the landlord or the tenant may, within 12 months, serve a notice on the other proposing a variation in the terms of the tenancy. The party on whom notice is served may, if he wishes, refer the notice to the rent assessment committee to consider whether the proposed variation is reasonable.
      These amendments introduce two small but useful changes to the procedure, which I hope will be welcomed. As drafted, the Bill provides that in serving a notice of variation of terms the landlord may propose an adjustment in the rent to take account of the variation. It seems to us, on reflection, that it should be equally open to the tenant to propose an adjustment of rent in this way, and amendment No. 72 provides the tenant with just such a facility.
      Amendment No. 73 extends from one month to three months the period allowed for the party on whom the notice is served under clause 6 to refer that notice to the rent assessment committee. Here we are moving exactly to meet an undertaking given in Committee. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) nodding on that point. I hope, therefore, that that will be welcomed.
      1020
      Since this is the first occasion I have had to refer to the hon. Member for Hammersmith, I will depart from the normal rancour and asperity of party politics to offer him the congratulations of the House on the birth of his son, who is called Benjamin I believe, which is a name with very good Tory credentials.
      Mr. Allan Roberts: We welcome the concession that the tenant can ask for the rent to be reassessed. Can we have an assurance that if the tenant initiates the reassessment the rent will not be put up?
      Mr. Waldegrave: The procedure is symmetrical now and the rent assessment committee can make its own judgment either way. It is the same the other way round —if the landlord puts it in the rent may go down.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 73, in page 5, line 16, leave out `one month' and insert 'three months'.
      Mr. Grist: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 5, line 18, after 'may', insert
      'by an application in the prescribed form'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take the following: Government amendment No. 67.
      Amendment No. 228, in clause 12, page 9, line 39, at end insert—
      '(3A) A notice served under subsection (2) of this section shall—
      (a) be in a form prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament:
      (b) contain a statement, in characters not less conspicuous than those used in any other part of the notice,

      (i) that the tenant, if he does not agree to the increase, may refer the notice to a rent assessment committee, within one month of service of the notice:

      (ii) that the tenant is entitled to refer the notice to a rent assessment committee to fix a market rent;

      Government amendments Nos. 15 and 26.
      Mr. Grist: So far as the Government amendments are concerned, a number of points were raised by hon. Members in Committee about the provisions in the Bill which involve the service of notice. In the light of the comments made, we undertook to have a further general look at these provisions. One result of so doing has been to identify the need for three further forms to be prescribed by the Secretary of State. Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 67 make the necessary provision for this. They relate to an application to the rent assessment committee under clauses 6 or 12 and to the notice of proceedings for possession under clause 8.
      I trust that hon. Members will welcome these new provisions as introducing greater clarity and certainty into the procedures concerned.
      Amendment No. 26 is purely a matter of drafting. It removes an unnecessary definition in respect of the shorthold notice served under clause 18(1).
      Opposition amendment No. 228 reopens an issue which we discussed at some length in Committee—whether it is sensible for a statute to specify the detailed points to be included in a notice which the Secretary of State is empowered to prescribe. Our firm view is that such a course is not sensible.

      1021
      We entirely agree that it is desirable for the prescribed notice to contain essential information on the tenant's statutory rights. We shall be giving very careful consideration to what information should be provided. It may well include at least some of the points referred to in this amendment, but we do not want to prejudge the whole issue by spelling out the details in the legislation itself. That would constitute a wholly inflexible and unwieldy approach and would not, in our view, be of any service to tenants.
      The Government accept the need for the principal notices under the Bill to be in a prescribed form; indeed, our own amendments extend this requirement to three further provisions. We accept, too, the need for notices to provide essential guidance for the tenant. But we resist very strongly the argument that the details of such guidance should be laid down in statute. I therefore hope that the Opposition will not press their amendment.
      Mr. Allan Roberts: Clause 12, which the Government are amending and the Opposition are attempting to amend, implements the high-rent policies behind the Government's legislation. It is the clause that spells out the mechanism by which the Government are to allow landlords to change rents from fair rents to market rents. It is therefore a significant clause. It matters to all tenants of private landlords throughout the country who will receive notices that their rents are being increased, sometimes by massive amounts, to market rents. It will affect the level of rents in relation to council housing and especially those houses that are handed over to the private sector or to bodies other than local authorities. And it will have an influence on the level of rents and how that is dealt with in relation to housing associations.
      So it is a very important clause and the Government amendments, while welcome, go nowhere near far enough. They do not meet the requirements that the Opposition spelled out in Committee. The Minister is correct in saying that we debated them in Committee. We debated amendment No. 192 at the ninth sitting, on Thursday 21 January—columns 361–71—and we had some assurances then from the Under-Secretary—whom I wish well in Finland, which is, as I said from a sedentary position, obviously the western equivalent of Siberia for the period of the Report stage and Third Reading of the Housing Bill.
      We were given some undertakings in Committee along the lines that the Minister has just repeated, except that there was some implication in what was said then that the changes would be even more significant on Report than those we have before us in the form of the Government amendments. The Under-Secretary said that she agreed that
      "the notice should give the tenant some information about his statutory rights."
      Very little is given in the way that the Government have tabled their amendments. She also said:
      "The key piece of information that we would want to include in the prescribed form of notice is that the tenant, if he does not agree to the increase, may refer the notice to a rent assessment committee, and that he has a fixed period within which to do so."
      That essential point does not appear in the amendment. We shall want to think further about what else should go into the notice, but we should certainly not want our hands to be tied by the shopping list set out in the amendment.
      The Under-Secretary went on to say:
      1022
      "I hope, therefore, that the amendment will be withdrawn in the light of my assurance that the notice needs to give the tenant some basic information."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 21 January 1988; c. 366.]
      On the basis of that and other assurances given by the Minister in Committee, the Opposition withdrew the amendment. But we should not have withdrawn it; we should have pressed it to a vote, because the Government have not come forward with the results of the assurances that they gave us in Committee. So we want to press amendment 228; we want to keep it before the House and not withdraw it. It would give the tenants the rights and the knowledge that they need. We are talking about the notices that will go out to increase rents massively and change fair rents into market rents.
      First, the tenant, if he does not agree to the increase, should be able to refer the notice to a rent assessment committee within one month of service of the notice. Secondly, the tenant is entitled to refer the notice to a rent assessment committee to fix the market rent, rather than its just being fixed on the basis of what the landlord or the Secretary of State for the Environment thinks the market rent should be—and I am sure that his idea of the market rent would be higher than anybody else's. Thirdly, the tenant's security of tenure under this Act should not he affected by his referring the notice to a rent assessment committee.
      It is the shorthold assured tenancy that is difficult, because, if a tenant starts to be awkward and refers things to a rent assessment committee, when the shorthold period of six months is up the landlord can throw him out anyway and get someone who is not as awkward and does not take these issues to a rent assessment committee. However, that is another issue in relation to our opposition to the concept of shorthold tenancies.
      We believe also that the tenant should be entitled to agree with the landlord a variation different from that proposed in the notice or to agree that the rent should not be varied. The Government claim to be in favour of agreements and negotiations between the two parties in terms of property, without any Government impositions; that is their justification for the whole concept of shorthold tenancies. The Government claim also that tenants and landlords are equal partners, but they know full well that that is not the case. The tenant often has to accept, as a supplicant, the landlord's offer because if he does not do so he will be made homeless.
      5.30 pm
      We believe also that no further notice should be served under subsection (2) in respect of the tenancy until after the first anniversary of the original notice's date of service. In other words, there should be at least one year's breathing space before the landlord may initiate proceedings to push up his rents even higher. Such is not unreasonable or bureaucratic, and it should be written into the legislation. We cannot just accept Ministers' bland assurances that at some future time a code might be produced which will incorporate such safeguards but that they need not be in the Bill. When the courts interpret any legislation, it is only what is in the Act that matters. Codes of conduct and notes of guidance are not legally binding and are not necessarily enforceable in law. Ministers' assurances cannot be quoted in courts of law in order to justify a tenant's action or an attack on those of the

      1023
      landlord. Therefore, we ask the Government to accept amendment No. 228; if not, the Opposition will not withdraw it.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: My name is also appended to this amendment, and I remember well the debate in Committee. I take a slightly different position from that of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), because I do not necessarily argue that such provisions should be included in the substantive Act. However, I seek from the Minister assurances additional to those which he has already given.
      The House has been reminded that we pressed in Committee that certain matters should be made explicit when the notice is served. The Minister's assurances, coupled with those given by his hon. Friend in Committee, do not go far enough. Nobody should underestimate the potential effect of this clause on private sector tenants, who will be taken out of rent control and into a free market system. The reality of that could be substantial rent increases.
      We ask that when tenants are informed of potentially enormous rent increases the document giving that information should state in bold lettering—and, as is said in the amendment, the wording of which comes from other Acts,
      "in characters not less conspicuous than those used in any other part of the notice"—
      that the tenant may refer the matter to the rent assessment committee and state the time in which he is allowed to do that. It should state also that the rent assessment committee has power to fix a market rent. That may still not provide any great security, but at least the rent may be reduced from being extortionate to one that is truly a market rent. It should be made clear also that if, a tenant goes to the rent assessment committee, that will not affect his security. Many tenants are terrified that if they go to what they think of as a court, that they will lose everything; that is a common fear of tenants. The notice should make plain that the tenant is free to negotiate with his landlord, and that no further notice or regular demand can be served until after the first anniversary of the earlier notice.
      I am sure that the Minister accepts that those are perfectly proper concerns. It is vital that a notice which may be put through the letterbox of a multi-occupancy property, and which might be received by people who do not have English as their first language, should be clear as to its implications and about the opportunities which exist for the tenant thereafter. I ask the Minister to assure the House that, whatever may be the final form of the notice, it will include the information which the amendment suggests. It is one of the most important documents that tenants in the private sector will receive. That information needs to be presented clearly and boldly, leaving no room for uncertainty. The House must be given such an assurance, if it is to be satisfied.
      Mr. McCartney: As the person who moved the original amendment in Committee, and as it forms 50 per cent. of the concessions I have achieved during the three months of debating the Bill, I am bitterly disappointed that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment is not in her place. I prepared for today's debate a savage indictment of her failure to make adequate proposals confirming her
      1024
      clear and unequivocal promise, given on the morning of the debate in Committee. However, I am relieved that the Under-Secretary is holidaying in Finland rather than in Iceland. Had she chosen Iceland, I would have waited for the Government to introduce proposals for low-cost housing in the United Kingdom, including igloos. Some people, because of cuts in capital allocations, are suffering from heating conditions such as those which exist in igloos; one might then ask the Government to provide resources for heating assessments.
      The Minister will understand that, in directing my fire at his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, I am directing it at him also. In Committee, we sought with our amendment to assist the Government, as we did during the whole 180 hours of debate. On every occasion, I and my hon. Friends attempted to improve the Bill, despite our fundamental opposition to the Government's proposals. We tried in practical ways to assist the people who will have to live with the consequences of the Bill. We attempted to improve the Bill in the best ways we could, in terms of clearly setting out the rights of the individual to assessment and advice, be it from housing organizations —and I shall not name those in Leicester in case I fail to mention anyone—law centres and so on.
      It is essential that the Government respond more adequately to amendment No. 228, which is coupled with Government amendment No. 14. It is important to consider rent arrears that will result from the changes made in housing benefit, and the effect that will have on schedule 2 to the Bill. One must consider also the implications for security of tenure and the draconian effect of the introduction of market rents on the budgets of low-income families, as well as the role of the rent assessment committee and its direct influence on rents and related matters. It is important that tenants' rights should be clearly set out in statute and that their security of tenure in rented accommodation should also be safeguarded.
      In Committee, I quoted a promise given to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley). The Under-Secretary stated:
      "the question of information is being considered. I see no reason why that should not be done as it would be helpful to both landlord and tenant."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 12 January 1988; c. 50]
      Subsequently, my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) was, as he so eloquently highlighted earlier, given assurances that on Report the Government would bring forward specific improved arrangements that would be satisfactory to the Opposition.
      The Minister's latest assurances are inadequate because they do not answer the grievances expressed by myself and by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). At one point, even the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) commented about his feeling of uncertainty about the way in which the Bill was drafted. I hope that the Minister will not proceed as he has done earlier but will give an assurance that he will consider seriously what has been said.
      In Committee the Under-Secretary played a game called "Give us a clue". Each time she got up to utter soothing words she gave us another clue. We wanted to know what the Government's concessions meant, what precisely they would put in the notice and what they intended to do to alleviate the worries expressed by us and by the housing associations and organisations involved with tenants in the private sector. We waited from March

      1025
      until now and the Government have offered us nothing, not a single dot or comma in answer to the points raised in Committee.
      The Minister has taken the place of the Under-Secretary. He has indicated that it is not normal practice to set out in detail the information we require and that the Secretary of State does not seek such powers in legislation. That is rich coming from a Government who, every time they introduce legislation, give draconian powers to the Secretary of State to cover almost any circumstances they can think of. The wording is so loose that on many occasions the Secretary of State's powers cover circumstances which were not thought of when the legislation was drafted.
      We are not in that ball game on housing. There are clear precedents in legislation for the Government to set out in detail the rights of tenants. For example, section 83 of the Housing Act 1985 sets out tenants' rights in detail in the notice seeking possession. In sections 51 and 52 of the Rent Act 1977 the arrangements for security of tenure and rent levels are set out specifically. Therefore, our proposals in Committee and again today are in line with current Government thinking.
      The Minister knows that one thing I could not be accused of is naivety. If I could be accused of anything, perhaps it would be of reading too much into what the Minister and the Under-Secretary said in Committee. I might be accused of being moderate and of putting aside some of my opposition to what was said by the Government in the hope that they would come forward with genuine proposals.
      Are not the Government operating double standards? The Minister is not prepared to insert a simple provision which would make clear the rights of private tenants, yet during the eight years that the Government have been in power they have dealt specifically with every aspect of tenants' rights under local authorities. They have been prepared to detail the rights and obligations of tenants in local authority housing. As a member of a local authority involved with housing I have no objection to that, but I object to double standards. A local authority tenant has protection and rights; the tenant in the private sector has few rights and under this legislation he will have fewer still. My hon. Friends and I are not prepared to accept those nauseating double standards.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle said, in Committee I set out in detail the principles behind our amendment. The debate is recorded in columns 361–371 of the Official Report of the Committee's proceedings on 21 January. Because my hon. Friends wish to speak in this debate, I shall not repeat those arguments. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle has put forward many of them today. Therefore, I simply point out to the Minister that it is essential that tenants' rights are protected. There is no point in the Minister making a spurious argument about supporting tenants' rights if the tenant cannot exercise those rights because they are not set out in statute and there is no detail about how he can seek advice.
      5.45 pm
      The Minister conceded in Committee that we are not dealing in the market place with bodies of equal opportunity. The landlord has significantly greater power to determine the level of rent and the condition of the property. The tenants' negotiating strength is non-existent. The Minister conceded that fact in Committee, and he and
      1026
      the Under-Secretary indicated on numerous occasions that they would produce practical proposals to take account of what I and my hon. Friends had said.
      When I moved the amendment in Committee I said:
      "The amendment is practical and does not undermine the fundamental thrust of the Government in relation to the Bill but puts a little meat on the bones of the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State on 12 January. I hope that the Minister will respond positively and either accept the amendment or give an assurance that she will come forward with proposals at a later date. Anything other than that would be a negation of the promise that she gave in the debate, and would undermine our understanding of the promise given to the Committee by the Minister for Housing and Planning that he would consider amendments that were practical and which assisted the passage of the Bill, assisted tenants and their rights and resulted in good relations between tenants and landlords."
      We cannot get any more sympathetic, moderate or practical phraseology. The Minister has had from 21 January until now to make good the promises of the Under-Secretary of State. She promised:
      "The key piece of information that we should want to include in the prescribed form of notice is that the tenant, if he does not agree to the increase, may refer the notice to a rent assessment committee, and that he has a fixed period within which to do so. That essential point does not appear in the amendment. We shall want to think further about what else should go into the notice".
      Later she said in a poignant whisper:
      "I hope, therefore, that the amendment will be withdrawn in the light of my assurance that the notice needs to give the tenant some basic information."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 21 January 1988; c. 365–66.]
      I accepted in faith what the Minister said and, despite the concern of some of my hon. Friends, I dutifully withdrew the amendment. I have to ask the Minister again not to give me empty promises, as the Under-Secretary did in Committee, but to come to the Dispatch Box and produce the goods for once in his life. The Under-Secretary could not do so. The Secretary of State is not here. The Minister has an opportunity to speak his own mind for once. So often we have seen the young leviathan harpooned behind the Speaker's Chair. For three months the Under-Secretary gave promise after promise. Then, almost at the end of the Committee, the Secretary of State put his little head round the door and a look was enough. The leviathan was harpooned.
      I ask the Minister to go back to the Dispatch Box and give a firm commitment. Without a commitment, the reality in the market place will be that tenants' rights and their ability to challenge ruthless landlords will be eroded. The Minister's soothing words will be of no use to many of my constituents, some of whom I mentioned in Committee. I referred to genuine cases of hardship. They will be affected by landlords who are ruthless in the extreme. Landlords will pressure tenants and affect rent levels, conditions and other matters that we are trying to improve and get out of the public and private housing sectors. Unless the Minister gives a commitment, his words will be no more than empty promises, and hundreds of thousands of private sector tenants will surely face not only the effects of increasing rents but the real possibility of harassment and losing their right to continued occupation of their properties. We shall not countenance that. We shall press the matter if the Minister does not come up with some proposals.
      Mr. David Winnick: Perhaps the lesson for my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) is that he should not be so moderate. Perhaps

      1027
      he should not listen to and take promises from Tory Ministers. That is particularly so, as he indicated, because there seems to be a running battle between the Secretary of State and the Minister. The press would have us believe that the Minister is the moderate in this game, but he recognises the potential for Rachmanites and so on. Whenever he wants to put forward some basic protection for private sector tenants, the Secretary of State makes it perfectly clear that that is out of the question. My hon. Friend was absolutely right. With this legislation, in which, in effect, protection and security for private sector tenants is being thrown overboard, it is perfectly right and proper that we should do our utmost in Committee and on Report, as we are not doing, to try to provide some basic protection and security, especially when landlords propose increases.
      It is perfectly clear that, in most cases, the proposed increases will be quite substantial. To a large extent, the whole Bill is based on the fact that rents should be market rents. As I said on Second Reading, in certain parts of the country—certainly in greater London—many market rents will be higher than mortgage repayments, except that the people concerned will not be able to claim tax relief on their rent payments. We know also that the responsibility of rent officers will be to see to it that, in many cases, housing benefit will not apply to the rents that are demanded by private landlords.
      If there were an adequate supply of accommodation, our fears would be less justified, but we all know that demand is far greater than supply. If a private tenant is asked for a rent increase under clause 12, it is perfectly understandable that that tenant and his family will be absolutely terrified about what will happen unless he pays that rent increase.
      We are suggesting that there should be certain basic protections, that the notice should be quite clearly set out, and that a tenant's security of tenure will not be affected by referring the notice to a rent assessment committee. Surely there is nothing wrong with such safeguards. Surely they do not undermine the purpose of the Bill. The Under-Secretary gave my hon. Friend a promise; it is quite clear that no such promise will be implemented. To a large extent, it is a test not for the Secretary of State but for the Minister. The Minister has done his utmost to get maximum publicity. He has said that there will be adequate safeguards against harassment and Rachmanites, and that all kinds of things will be done so that tenants will be able to claim compensation in court and so on.
      Mr. Keith Bradley: They would be able to apply for compensation only after they had been thrown out of their properties.
      Mr. Winnick: As my hon. Friend says, if they are thrown out, they will not get back into their accommodation.
      Of course, Mr. Ingham and co. have done their utmost to get the most favourable publicity this week for the Minister's various statements. What we have said is not rhetoric, statements or publicity handouts by information Ministers; it is what will be done to try to protect the tenants. What will we do to ensure that tenants and their families receive at least some basic protection against eviction and
      1028
      finding themselves homeless? One of the tests of the sincerity of the Minister's publicly declared wish that tenants should not be subject to harassment is whether the Government are willing to accept amendment No. 228.
      Mr. Grist: I do not know whether Opposition Members are sirens of beguilement or alarm. Unfortunately, they serve to raise alarm among current tenants who will not be affected by the changes. Therefore, Opposition Members sow despondency where it should not be sown. They beguiled by telling me—I was not on the Committee, although I have read the Committee debates—that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave promises that were not met in the Government amendments. What was promised then has been met by the Government this evening.
      We are following the precedent of the Rent Act 1977. Again, prescription has been made by the Secretary of State—for instance, in orders and notices such as this—in considerable length and detail, which I shall read if hon. Members wish, but which is not included in the Act itself. We are discussing whether prescription should be on the face of the Bill. We believe that we should follow the precedent of the Rent Act and that we should take great care about what goes into the legislation. I assure Opposition Members that much of the information in amendment No. 228 will be included in the prescribed form under clause 12, but we do not want to put it in a form that may not be suitable later.
      Mr. John Battle: On innumerable occasions in Committee we asked about rent and whether the Minister would be prepared to assure us that a rent increase for people on housing benefit will be matched by a housing benefit increase. Will he assure Opposition Members and those who are interested in the fact that their rent may go up that such increases will be met by housing benefit? It seems to some of us that the reduction in housing benefit will mean that market rent levels will not be met by housing benefit.
      Mr. Grist: Assurances have been given over and over again, but I do not see how they arise from this group of amendments.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: As the Minister will have heard earlier, I accept the point about the matter going into regulations. Perhaps it is the lawyer in me that is more used to dealing with such matters, but I still do not quite understand why the Minister cannot explicitly say that what is in the amendment will be in the regulations. There is nothing unreasonable in that request. It is quite reasonable to ask for an assurance that the request in this amendment will be accepted for inclusion in the document and in the notice. I should be grateful if the Minister would say what, if anything, he finds difficult. If there is nothing difficult, surely the Government should now be in a position to say that they accept it, and their position would be much better.
      Mr. Grist: That seems rather otiose. The situation has worked perfectly well with the Rent Acts. I should have thought that that would have given the assurance that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members are seeking.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 74, in page 6, line 13, at end insert
      `or if the tenancy has come to an end'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

    Clause 7

      ORDERS FOR POSSESSION
      Mr. Grist: I beg to move amendment No. 282, in page 6, line 27, leave out 1' and insert '10A'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: Government amendments Nos. 282, 286, 288.
      Amendment No. 225, in schedule 2, page 80, line 37, at end insert—
      `Ground 10A
      Suitable alternative accommodation acceptable to the tenant is available for the tenant or will be available for him when the order for possession takes effect.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 290, 291, 284 and 285.
      Mr. Grist: A good deal of concern was expressed in Committee about the fact that ground 1 of schedule 2 gives a landlord a mandatory right to possession of a dwelling on an assured tenancy where he makes suitable alternative accommodation available. We undertook to consider making that ground discretionary and the amendment achieves that.
      Under section 98 of the Rent Act 1977 the court will be able to consider whether it is reasonable to grant possession taking full account of the tenant's circumstances. Opposition amendment No. 225 provides a slightly different version of the discretionary ground under which the alternative accommodation must be acceptable to the tenant. That will not do because if the tenant is prepared to accept the accommodation, the landlord would not have gone to court in the first place.
      6 pm
      Mr. Soley: In Committee, the Minister assured my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that if we withdrew our amendment he would be prepared to consider amending the ground so as to require the court to consider whether it was reasonable to grant possession under the Rent Act 1977. The Minister went on to say that that was the major change.
      Amendment No. 225 places the ground in a discretionary category and includes a repeat of amendment No. 34 moved in Committee which sought to make alternative accommodation acceptable to the tenant. We are concerned about acceptability to the tenant. I know that in Committee the Minister accepted that the discretion should lie with the court. However, we believe that there are real problems about defining what is suitable for a tenant.
      We explained in Committee that a person might be told that he is being offered alternative accommodation without a garden which may be the same or even better internally when compared to the previous accommodation. Who is to decide whether the alternative accommodation is suitable? If the tenant claims that it is not suitable, presumably he can appeal to the court. However, we are still worried that a situation might arise, especially with regard to the elderly who may have an attachment to a house, flat, garden or an area in which they may have lived for many years, in which people will not consider alternative accommodation to be suitable.
      I want the Minister to address problems that may arise in that context. The elderly may be presented with an option which even the landlord and even the court in
      1030
      certain circumstances feel is appropriate but which the elderly tenant may, often for psychological reasons—an attachment to a particular flat, grounds, garden or area —consider unacceptable. We have been troubled by that matter of judgment, especially with regard to the elderly.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the concession from a mandatory to a discretionary ground because we argued for that in Committee. However, I am somewhat sceptical about this. I understand the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). The insertion of the words "acceptable to the tenant" in practice might mean that a property would never be offered as an alternative. A tenant would always be able to say that it was not acceptable for some reason or another. It is better, with one caveat that I will describe in a moment, to allow the matter to be adjudicated by the court.
      My caveat arises from my experience of these cases. Quite understandably, because judges are not especially keen to spend their days on site considering bathroom sizes, the court suffers from the disadvantage that we discussed in Committee of not being specially charged with housing matters. We discussed in Committee how soon the review and establishment of housing courts would happen. One of the failures of the court system, which need not be a failure inherent in a system that adjudicates on these matters, is that there should be a system which allows proper and slightly fuller evidence to be given in written form about the nature of the accommodation needed and that offered.
      I do not support amendment No. 225 and I accept the reasonable concession that has been made. I hope that my concern will be heard on the Government Front Bench and in other Government Departments that are reviewing the matter, so that when the courts and/or their successors—tribunals or housing courts—have to adjudicate what is acceptable or suitable they can do so in a much more rounded way than at present. The courts make the decisions, but they are often made in a remote way.
      There is a danger that sometimes what a court says is suitable is not suitable in practice. For example, a family in my constituency consists of a widowed mother and a mentally handicapped adult son. The mentally handicapped adult son is enormously hyperactive. He bounces around the house. He jumps around bumping into things and pulls doors off their hinges. He is very strong. They are suitably housed in terms of accommodation because they have enough bedrooms, a kitchen and a living room. However, we have been trying to get the family moved to more suitable accommodation for two or three years because they need outdoor space so that the adult son can have freedom to let off his energy without vandalising the home. That outdoor space must be enclosed so that the community and neighbourhood are not embarrassed.
      A strict definition of suitable accommodation may not produce such an alternative because strictly two bedrooms are sufficient. There should be a discretion for the court to consider the definition of suitable accommodation. The court should be given a slightly wider brief in future and consider itself to have a slightly wider roving task to co-me to fair decisions in all cases and not push tenants out to what may not be a suitable alternative home.
      Mr. Grist: I imagine that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will welcome

      1031
      the terms of the Lord Chancellor's review which would go some way towards meeting the hon. Gentleman's demands, and we are considering that review at the moment.
      We have already met the difficulty raised by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). The court will judge what is suitable for the tenant. It must be left to the court to decide. It is almost impossible to make a prescription and if we try to do that we shall find that ill justice will be done to many people, and a court would be prevented from righting such injustices in the future.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 75, in page 6, line 30, leave out
      'which is for the time being'
      and insert
      'to take effect at a time when it is'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]
      Mr. Waldegrave: I beg to move amendment No. 283, in page 6, line 32, leave out 'Ground 9 or Ground 10' and insert 'or Ground 9'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: amendment No. 326, in schedule 2, page 80, leave out lines 28 to 35.
      Government amendment No. 287.
      Amendment No. 226, in page 80, line 30, leave out
      'some rent lawfully due from the tenant is more than three months in arrears',
      and insert
      'at least three months rent lawfully due from the tenant is in arrears.'.
      No. 237, in page 80, line 32, leave out lines 32 to 35.
      No. 238, in page 80, line 37, at end insert—
      'Ground 10A
      Whether or not any rent is in arrears on the date on which proceedings for possession are begun, the tenant has persistently delayed paying rent which has become lawfully due.'.
      Government amendment No. 289.
      Amendment No. 327, in page 81, line 30, at end insert—
      'Ground 17
      Both at the date of the service of the notice under section 8 of this Act relating to the proceedings for possession and at the date of the hearing, some rent lawfully due from the tenant is more than three months in arrears.
      Ground 18
      Whether or not any rent is in arrears on the date on which proceedings for possession are begun, the tenant has persistently delayed paying rent which has become lawfully due.'
      Mr. Waldegrave: This group of amendments honours important undertakings that we gave in Committee and I hope that Opposition Members will welcome them. Hon. Members will recall that we agreed to look again at the persistent arrears ground because it was argued in Committee that persistent arrears were sometimes the fault of delays in the housing benefit payments system. We listened to the arguments and were convinced by them, because such arrears would be outside the control of the tenant.
      We have therefore decided that the ground should be made discretionary and several Oppposition Members and one or two of my hon. Friends argued for that. The amendment will enable the court to consider whether persistent delays are under the tenant's control.
      We also agreed to have another look at ground 10 because the drafting was ambiguous. The more we looked at it, the more we saw that it could be read either way. The
      1032
      amendment makes it quite clear; we have spelt it out so that there can be no doubt. For this ground to apply, the tenant must be owing at least three months' rent at the date of the court hearing. If the tenant pays off any of the arrears before the hearing, the ground will not apply, and if it was the result of a housing benefit computer failure it would be open to the local authority to make a single, one-off payment into the court to bring the arrears back under three months.
      I hope that the amendments will be welcomed by the Oppositon and alliance parties. They are intended to deal with the cogent arguments that were put forward in Committee.
      Mr. Soley: I am grateful to the Minister for making those concessions. I thank him for his earlier comment, but I assure him that there are other derivatives of "Ben" besides "Benjamin". One of them is "Bennett". A second one is "Tam", which has a certain Scottish and Labour ring about it.
      On amendments Nos. 237 and 238, am I right in thinking that the Minister is not happy about making the provision discretionary under ground 11? It was made discretionary in the Scottish Bill. I am not clear whether the Minister said that it will now be discretionary or mandatory. I welcome the other concessions that the Minister has made.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I, too, welcome the concessions. There was a substantial debate about the matter in Committee. I wish, however, to press the Minister on my amendments Nos. 326 and 327 that argue for discretion in relation to outstanding arrears of up to three months. The Minister said that if it was a housing benefit delay, it would be open to a local authority to make a single payment so that the total outstanding arrears would fall below three months.
      A frequent problem is that people think that their rent is being paid when it is not being paid. That problem often arises at the beginning of a new financial year when the amount of rent is varied or when the amount of DHSS help is varied. It also arises when people think that other odds and ends are included in the rent. They think that the DHSS pays for everything, but central heating is not paid for by the Department. Tenants are unaware of that liability, and they have to settle the account. There may be entirely unpredictable and unforeseeable occasions when somebody finds himself three months in arrear. It may amount to £1 a week, the central heating part of the rent, or it may be that part of the rent that is not met by housing benefit and Government support. According to the Bill, the tenancy of such a person could be terminated.
      The Minister has thought about it and the officials have done their work. The rest of the concessions are entirely acceptable, but in equity, and to ensure that the courts temper justice with mercy when somebody ought not to have a mandatory possession order made against him, that problem ought to be looked at again.
      I do not expect the Minister to say immediately that he will meet that request. It will need to be considered, but I ask him to look at it. There is sufficient evidence to justify that request.
      Mr. Waldegrave: I confirm to the hon. Members for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and for Southwark and

      1033
      Hughes) that we have not changed our mind. Three months' arrears remains a mandatory ground in the Bill.
      We have to remember the other side of the coin. If a landlord has lost a large amount of money because of a bureaucratic foul-up, it is open to the tenant to go to one or other of those bits of bureaucracy and say, "My case is coming up in court. I shall automatically lose my tenancy if you do not deal with the matter." All that the bureaucracy has to do is to make one payment to bring the arrears down under three months.
      I do not intend to make any further concessions. We would then go too far the other way. We have to remember that small landlords can be in extreme difficulties because somebody is avoiding paying his rent. We think that we have now got it about right.
      6.15 pm
      Ms. Primarolo: The Minister referred to bureaucratic bungles—to a fault by the DHSS or the local authority, or to failure to pay maintenance leading to an accumulation of arrears. Why are tenants being used as a battering ram against errors that they have not made? Even if the landlord has a genuine case, it is not right for him to use the tenant as a battering ram. We are seeking to protect tenants' rights. They should not be used as pawns when the Government seek to protect the interests of landlords, courts, local authorities or the Department of Health and Social Security. The Minister ought to think again and accept our amendments.
      Mr. Waldegrave: We are trying to establish a reasonable balance. The hon. Lady is quite right when she says that we should not use tenants as a battering ram against bureaucratic failure, but the landlord should not have to pay because one part of the bureaucracy or another has failed to provide the money that it owes. It does not have to sort itself out properly. It simply has to make one payment to bring the arrears back under three months and then sort itself out. The DHSS or the housing benefit office must accept its liability and make one payment to bring the arrears back under three months. The tenancy is then safe.
      Mr. Soley: The arrears provision was made discretionary in the Scottish Bill by means of ground 11. They got round the problem in that way. Why was it appropriate to make it discretionary in the Scottish Bill if it is not appropriate to make it discretionary in the Bill for England and Wales? If the argument were so forceful as to make the provision discretionary in the Scottish Bill, why are England and Wales so different? Why not meet the problem that is worrying the Minister and, quite rightly, is worrying my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) by dealing with it, if necessary, through the courts on a discretionary basis, should there be a dispute?
      Mr. Waldegrave: There are a number of respects in which the housing legislation for Scotland differs from that for England and Wales. We have come to the conclusion that the concessions that we have made, plus the method that is open to the housing benefit office, if that should be necessary—although it very seldom is—achieves a reasonable balance between the tenant and the landlord.
      1034
      There are a number of respects in which Scottish law shows that the boot is on the other foot. We do not always follow Scottish legislation.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 2

      GROUNDS FOR POSSESSION OF DWELLING-HOUSES LET ON ASSURED TENANCIES
      Amendments made: No. 286 in page 78, leave out lines 32 to 34.
      No. 16, in page 79, line 18, leave out
      'assured tenancy is for a term certain'
      and insert
      'tenancy is a fixed term tenancy for a term'.
      No. 17, in page 79, line 26, leave out
      'assured tenancy is for a term certain'
      and insert
      'tenancy is a fixed term tenancy for a term'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]
      Mr. Waldegrave: I beg to move amendment No. 293, in
      page 79, line 43, after 'possession', insert
      'or, if that landlord is a registered housing association or charitable housing trust, a superior landlord'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendment No. 294. Amendment No. 219, in page 80, line 15, at end insert:
      '(e)suitable alternative accommodation is available for the tenant or will be available for him when the order for possession takes effect.'.
      Amendment No. 220, in page 81, line 33, after 'Ground 1', insert 'and Ground 7'.
      Amendment No. 221, in page 81, line 40, after 'Ground 1', insert 'or Ground 7'.
      Mr. Waldegrave: The amendments deal with the question of suitable alternative accommodation. Opposition Members wanted us to make it a condition of the redevelopment ground for possession that there should be suitable alternative accommodation available for any displaced tenant. We thought that that was too restrictive. We do not want the ground to be so circumscribed that it is useless. Moreover, there is already a ground for possession where suitable alternative accommodation is available. I should emphasise that this ground can be used only in respect of assured tenancies, not for Rent Act tenancies and not if the landlord has bought the property over the head of an existing tenant, and only if the landlord has made every effort to ensure that the work cannot be done without displacing the tenant. It is not a ground that can be used lightly to evict. However, it must not be so hedged with restrictions that it is unusable, as clearly there are large areas in which we want to encourage sensible development.
      Amendment No. 293 meets the undertaking that I gave in Committee to examine the amendment suggested by the empty property unit. I am glad to say that we have adopted the suggestion and extended the ground to superior landlords where the immediate landlord is a registered housing association or a charitable housing trust—a matter that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) raised in Committee. I hope, as the unit believes, that the amendment will facilitate the use of short-life property, and that must be an objective for us all—in all cities and in London especially.
      Amendment No. 294 redrafts the ground in certain ways. It covers joint tenants, so that it cannot be used

      1035
      where some of the tenants in an agreement antedated the purchase of a property by the landlord even though others came in after he acquired it. That is a useful additional protection for tenants.
      The amendment also makes it clear that there may be alternative reasons why it is not possible to carry out the work without displacing the tenant. The original version set out a series of conditions, all of which had to be fulfilled before the ground could apply. This amendment makes the ground more flexible without, I believe, undermining the position of tenants in any way. I hope that the proposals will be welcomed by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and perhaps by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire).
      Mr. Battle: It strikes me as ironic that the schedule should be attached to a part of the Bill that refers to security of tenure, given that it deals with grounds for possession. Schedule 2 highlights the great trap for private tenants in the Bill. When the schedule was presented in Committee it showed a marked shift of rights from the private tenant to the landlord. Discretion was taken away from the courts and grounds for possession were made mandatory. I note that the Secretary of State is now present. We have had some welcome concessions on two or three of the earlier grounds. However, I suggest that Government amendment 293 represents a toughening of the original position. As I understand the proposal, a landlord who wants to develop a room in a house in which a tenant rents another room will have the right to claim that the builder has to walk through the tenant's room and that that gives grounds to evict the tenant. In that sense, the amendment extends and toughens ground 7 rather than conceding any of the points that we made about defending tenants' rights.
      Ground 7 comes from the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. Throughout the Committee stage we argued that the schedule took away tenants' rights under the 1977 Act and marked a shift away from tenants' rights. In Committee, the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) harked back to the 1954 Act, but it is worth remembering that that Act referred to commercial tenancies. It is not common for tenants to have an understanding of complex contractual law. They do not go through the fine print of the contract with their landlord—if they get a contract, that is.
      When people need a home to rent they do not enter into proper contracts with landlords as a matter of free consent. They enter into contracts in which there is inequality of power between the contracting partners—the landlord and the tenant. The purpose of amendment No. 219 is to press the case that suitable alternative accommodation should be made available to ensure that ground 7 does not become a developers' charter, enabling the landlord to winkle out the tenant and gain possession so that he can redevelop the home only to let it at a higher rent, leaving the original tenant on the street.
      We had a long debate in Committee in which the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire raised the point that the whole clause hinges on the word "intention". We must ask what is the intention of the landlord. Does he have a real intention to develop or does he simply propose to obtain
      1036
      planning permission or the suggestion of tenders to provide the necessary evidence to obtain a court order to evict without providing safeguards for tenants?
      The Minister will say that ground 7 contains safeguards to prevent a developer from acquiring the freehold over the head of sitting tenants and then using the ground to evict them. The safeguard provides that neither the landlord seeking possession nor any landlord who owned the freehold since the tenancy was granted can have bought the freehold, as opposed to acquiring it by inheritance or gift. However, those safeguards can be bypassed. If the landlord is a company, there is nothing to stop the developer buying a majority shareholding in the landlord and then using ground 7.
      In parenthesis, I remind hon. Members that the business expansion scheme proposal lays the clause wide open because the business expansion scheme offers incentives of £500,000. I would add that some of our anger at the way in which the Bill has been brought before us on Report is that it reflects the fact that the Government have made up housing policy piecemeal. The business expansion scheme was presumably being prepared for the Budget in March precisely when we were discussing the clause, yet we could not discuss the impact that it would have. The Bill should have been referred back to the Committee so that we could study the impact of the business expansion scheme on ground 7, because the BES provision buys developers into the Bill at tenants' expense. If the landlord is a company, or becomes a company with a grant under the new business expansion scheme, there is nothing to stop a developer buying a majority shareholding in that company and then using ground 7. There will have been no change in the identity of the landlord—the landlord is still the company—so the safeguard will not apply.
      Whether the landlord is an individual or a company, there is nothing to stop a developer entering into an agreement with him under which the developer provides finance for so-called redevelopment. The clause is wide open for exploitation under the business expansion scheme provision. How will the clause close doors to future Rachmans or to the other individuals mentioned in Committee? The answer is that it will not; it will blast them wide open.
      Under the clause as drafted, the tenant may be able to avoid possession by giving up that part of the home required by the landlord to carry out the improvement and redevelopment work. But if the landlord wants to arrange for the builder to walk through his room, that does not apply. The only safeguard that can be solidly built into the clause is the provision of suitable alternative accommodation. The scope for abuse by landlords using ground 7 to gain possession to sell rather than to develop and the vulnerability of sitting tenants to developers using ground 7 to sell or redevelop makes a mockery of the White Paper, which claimed that the Bill would give increased protection to tenants. Ground 7 will undermine tenants' protection and make a mockery of that claim.
      I detect that a fracture is developing at the heart of the Government's housing policy. That fracture was evident in the Bill. Sometimes we were told to pay attention to the market because the brave winds of the market were being brought in to free the housing market and provide more housing. In Committee the hon. Member for Eastbourne

      1037
      (Mr. Gow) reminded us often of the works of Milton Friedman who tried to define competitive capitalism. Milton Friedman said that it operates
      "provided the transaction [within the market place] is bilaterally voluntary and informed exchange can bring about co-ordination without coercion."
      He put into italics the words:
      "provided the transaction is bilaterally voluntary and informed".—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 19 January 1988; c. 259.]
      6.30 pm
      Under ground 7 there is no equality. There is no bilateral, voluntary and informed contract between landlord and tenant. The power to evict is given to the landlord.
      The Government's policy has been based on the philosophy of the social market. There is a fracture in the Government's policy in that the Minister has been underlining the word "social" in the phrase "social market economy". Although we have not yet seen it, he has offered us the social landlord and the social charter. I suspect that the Secretary of State has been underlining the word "market". Therefore, the Minister for Housing and Planning has been stressing the word "social" and the Secretary of State has been stressing the word "market" at the expense of the word "social". Those two things are totally incompatible and the Housing Bill is now emerging as a real hotch-potch.
      If the Bill is designed to transform the private rented market, there is a responsibility to ensure that those who have to live in that transformed private rented market do not feel that they are among the most insecure in our society, barring the homeless who do not even merit a mention in the Bill. The Bill is a missed opportunity.
      Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): I will not attempt to answer some of the points made by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) except to say that earlier today he and I took part in a television programme on Channel 4 on this very subject. As always happens—I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in your long and distinguished career you will have done the same—as soon as one steps out from the television studio, one kicks oneself for not having thought of the simple answer to what had appeared to be a tricky question when sitting before the camera. The hon. Member for Leeds, West said then that there was no mention of homelessness in the Bill. The House will recall that in the Employment Act 1988 there is no mention of unemployment. The purpose of employment Acts is to increase employment and the purpose of the Housing Bill is to increase the availability of housing. I am sure that when it receives Royal Assent it will do that.
      I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's fine tuning of the definition of "suitable alternative accommodation". I am sure that that is right because I believe that it will facilitate a better and more productive use of our existing housing stock. However, in the event of a disagreement or dispute between the landlord and the tenant as to the suitability of the alternative accommodation provided by the landlord, who acts as the final arbiter? I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister will consider that point during this Report stage.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Amendment No. 293 is welcome. The provisions of that amendment were tabled on an all-party basis in Committee by the hon. Members for
      1038
      Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) and myself. We are members of the management committee of the empty property unit.
      Mr. McCartney: Namedropper.
      Mr. Hughes: No doubt if the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) was a London Member he would be desperate to obtain a place on that management committee—[Interruption.]—and desperate to obtain accommodation.
      I should like to pick up the points made by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle). Ground 7 is a ground for possession if there is to be a development of the building. I accept that it is limited because it does not apply to buildings acquired financially. It applies to buildings that are inherited or otherwise held. Nevertheless, it is a common occurrence that the landlord of privately owned property may wish to develop the property, demolish it, reconstruct it wholly or in part, or "carry out substantial works." The landlord may start to do that and leave the tenant with nowhere to go and no other offer of property from that landlord.
      I accept that the Minister and the Secretary of State will say, quite reasonably, that the landlord may not own another property. That may be true. However, if that tenant could not have his or her interest sustained while the property was being redeveloped, probably for continued letting, would it not be right that that tenant should have access to a type of mobility exchange scheme that would require the landlord to provide suitable alternative accommodation? It may be accommodation obtained through another route and not property belonging to the landlord or property over which he has control.
      There is another necessary qualification—that is, if the building was about to fall down or have a notice served on it by the local council. Clearly, one could not expect a tenant to remain in a property that was about to disappear. However, as the hon. Member for Leeds, West argued, it is unacceptable that at the whim of a landlord a tenant can be made homeless. The landlord may simply want to develop a building so as to provide more properties and generate more income and it is wrong that a tenant has no answer from the landlord or the court because the ground for possession is mandatory. The landlord can simply say, "I am sorry, but you will have to leave. We have no way of telling you where you should go and it is no longer possible for this to be your home."
      It is often the case—not always—that the mandatory ground for possession of private property affects the old and the single. It is often the case that it is single pensioners or pensioner couples who, having lived for many years in a property, find themselves in such a position. Local authorities do not respond quickly and housing associations do not have anything available quickly. They are not willing to move until the person is actually homeless or very nearly homeless. It is an inhumane ground for possession if we do not try to do something to provide alternative accommodation for the tenant, and the landlord should be involved in that.
      I would be grateful to hear the Minister's initial response to that. I wonder whether something could be done to protect tenants who find themselves in what would otherwise be a hopeless position.
      Mr. Waldegrave: We had a prolonged debate on this matter in Committee and some of the same arguments have been produced today. There is a division across the Floor of the House. One of the reasons why so little property is brought into the rented sector and why so much property that could be rented is left empty is that landlords fear that it will be virtually impossible for them to gain reuse of the property if major development proposals come up.
      We are trying to strike a balance throughout the Bill. The Opposition are arguing that tremendous obligations should be put on landlords to take responsibility for the housing of their tenants even if they are leaving the landlord business and perhaps taking part in an inner city development, which would be welcome. That would prevent landlords from letting and, if they do obtain possession of a property, it would encourage them to leave it empty rather than run the risk of any further developments being blocked. That is where we must try to achieve a balance in the Bill. We believe that ground 7 is right.
      The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) asked how serious the intention to redevelop had to be. I hoped that I had shown in Committee that the courts carefully consider the seriousness of intention. I quoted a number of cases from the workings of commercial law, on which our proposal is based, to show that if a landlord wishes to terminate a business lease for redevelopment he must show the necessary intention not only by saying that he chooses to redevelop but by having planning permission and contracts let, assuming that he is charging market rents. If he is making further lettings, he is already charging market rents and does not experience the same pressure to get people out as landlords with Rent Act tenancies.
      Mr. Battle rose——
      Mr. Waldegrave: I fear that I will not convince Opposition Members about this matter. We believe that if we change the balance a little, properties will become available.
      Mr. Battle: The clause is based on the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. Under that Act, compensation is paid to business tenants who are being moved out, so why is there no compensation in the Bill for those who lost their homes?
      Mr. Waldegrave: If I remember rightly, relocation costs can be paid——
      Mr. Battle: Removal costs.
      Mr. Waldegrave rose——
      Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend agree that under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 compensation is paid in place of providing suitable accommodation? It enables the displaced tenant to provide his own suitable accommodation.
      Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is more learned about that matter than I am.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister say whether in all cases such development would meet the objectives on which he and his colleagues are so keen—the reletting of property for residential use? I see that an answer is coming from behind the Minister. Is it not right that development for commerical purposes may not necessarily produce
      1040
      further accommodation for letting? If so, it is not easily defended on the ground that it will produce more private sector rented property.
      Mr. Waldegrave: If land is being used not for the provision of homes but for another necessary inner city development, it is more unfair that the responsibility for accommodating tenants should lie in every case with the landlord. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) passed me a useful reminder that the existing assured tenancy scheme includes a redevelopment ground.
      Mr. Boateng rose——
      Mr. Waldegrave: We have spent many hours debating this matter, but there is a clear difference of philosophy. We believe that the burdens on landlords have contributed to the decline of the rented sector. Much of the empty property in inner cities is kept empty against the fear of redevelopment. We hope that we have dealt with that problem in the short term.
      If we go back down this route, we shall be contributing to the continuance of empty property, and I would not want to urge the House to do that.
      Mr. Boateng: I invite the Minister to give the first of what I suspect will be many honourable mentions in dispatches to his parliamentary private secretary.
      Mr. McCartney: Hod-carrier.
      Mr. Boateng: Hod-carrier is too crude and coarse an expression to describe the Minister's PPS. He performs a useful function, though it is not as constructive as that of a hod-carrier.
      Once again, the Minister has been writhing and wriggling. We saw the hand motions, the tugging of the ear and the engaging smile that we all came to know so well in Committee. He will have to do much better. If he does not, he will be here for many hours.
      Mr. Waldegrave: I think that I hold the record as a Minister—certainly during this century—for a continuous sitting of the House. I am happy to continue indefinitely. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would unfold his arms, because he is wearing a most remarkable tie. With his arms folded, we are not getting the full benefit of it.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Allan Roberts: We are not happy with what the Minister has been saying about empty property. Local authorities are the Government's whipping boys. The Government always try to blame the housing shortage and the number of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation on the fact that waiting lists are growing and on the fact that local authorities have properties standing empty. They always ignore the private sector and especially the houses standing empty that are under Government ownership.
      Over the past 10 years I have campaigned to get empty properties into use. I have been known to propose legislation that criticised local authorities that unnecessarily kept properties empty. I, unlike the Government, have always tried to strike a balance.
      In 1986 there were 111,600 houses in local authority ownership standing empty, but there were 493,200 houses empty in the private sector. By 1987, the number of houses in local authority ownership empty had reduced to

      1041
      108,600, but there had been an increase in the private sector figure to 511,200. During that period, the Government's Housing Act 1980 provisions and the shorthold-tenancy provisions were in operation. The Government said that they would solve the problem and that all houses that landlords kept empty because they could not obtain vacant possession would come flooding back on to the market. The Minister is advancing the same fallacious arguments in these proposals.
      Mr. Robin Squire: As the hon.Gentleman has spoken in public in favour of greater use of empty property under different tenures and ownership, will he concede that if the Bill is passed without further comment about empty private property it is, none the less, perfectly valid to consider proposals for greater use of local authority property?
      Mr. Roberts: As long as local authorities are not being unduly penalised or criticised unreasonably for not letting empty properties that could not be let because they did not have finance following the cuts in housing investment programmes to make empty properties available with the speed that they would like. I agree that we should be critical of local authorities that have properties standing empty unnecessarily. Simply to quote figures of properties in local authority ownership that are standing empty does not give the true picture. The Government quoted massive figures of properties standing empty in Liverpool. They were tenement blocks standing empty prior to demolition. Those figures were unfair and it was not right to pillory local authorities and make them the scapegoat for the Government's failure to allow sufficient houses to be built for people on waiting lists.
      I shall give some figures from Sefton metropolitan district council. It is an important local authority and the constituency of Bootle falls within its boundaries. In Sefton 335 local authority houses and 113 houses owned by housing associations are standing empty. There are 6,333 standing empty in the private rented sector. That is a scandal in view of a waiting list of over 4,000. The local authority is doing an excellent job, even though since 1979 it has had a 78·3 per cent. cut in its housing investment programme allocations.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 294, in page 80 leave out lines 1 to 15 and insert—

      '(a) the intended work cannot reasonably be carried out without the tenant giving up possession of the dwelling-house because—

      (i) the tenant is not willing to agree to such a variation of the terms of the tenancy as would give such access and other facilities as would permit the intended work to be carried out, or

      (ii) the nature of the intended work is such that no such variation is practicable, or

      (iii) the tenant is not willing to accept an assured tenancy of such part only of the dwelling-house (in this sub-paragraph referred to as "the reduced part") as would leave in the possession of his landlord so much of the dwelling-house as would be reasonable to enable the intended work to be carried out and, where appropriate, as would give such access and other facilities over the reduced part as would permit the intended work to be carried out, or

      (iv) the nature of the intended work is such that such a tenancy is not practicable; and

      (b) either the landlord seeking possession acquired his interest in the dwelling-house before the grant of the
      1042
      tenancy or that interest was in existence at the time of that grant and neither that landlord (or, in the case of joint landlords, any of them) nor any other person who, alone or jointly with others, has acquired that interest since that time acquired it for money or money's worth.

      For the purpose of this ground, if, immediately before the grant of the tenancy, the tenant to whom it was granted or, if it was granted to joint tenants, any of them was the tenant or one of the joint tenants under an earlier assured tenancy of the dwelling-house concerned, any reference in paragraph (b) above to the grant of the tenancy is a reference to the grant of that earlier assured tenancy.
      For the purposes of this ground "registered housing association" has the same meaning as in the Housing Associations Act 1985 and "charitable housing trust" means a housing trust, within the meaning of that Act, which is a charity, within the meaning of the Charities Act 1960.',
      No. 19, in page 80, line 21, after 'landlord', insert—
      'or, in the case of joint landlords, any one of them.'
      No. 287, in page 80 line 30, leave out from `hearing' to end of line 35 and insert—

      `(a) if rent is payable weekly or fortnightly, at least thirteen weeks' rent is unpaid;

      (b) if rent is payable monthly, at least three months' rent is unpaid;

      (c) if rent is payable quarterly, at least one quarter's rent is more than three months in arrears; and

      (d) if rent is payable yearly, at least three months' rent is more than three months in arrears;

      and for the purpose of this ground "rent" means rent lawfully due from the tenant'.
      No. 288, in page 80, line 37, at end insert—
      Ground 10A
      Suitable alternative accommodation is available for the tenant or will be available for him when the order for possession takes effect.'
      No. 289, in page 80, line 44, at end insert—
      'Ground 11A
      Whether or not any rent is in arrears on the date on which proceedings for possession are begun, the tenant has persistently delayed paying rent which has become lawfully due.'.
      No. 290, in page 81, line 33, leave out '1' and insert '10A'.
      No. 291, in page 81, line 40, leave out 'I' and insert `10A'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

    Clause 8

      NOTICE OF PROCEEDINGS FOR POSSESSION
      Mr. Grist: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page '7, line 4, at end insert
      'and the proceedings are begun within the time limits stated in the notice in accordance with subsections (3) and (4) below'.
      These two amendments are straightforward amendments to ensure that a landlord who serves notice under clause 8 that he intends to seek possession should bring proceedings within 12 months of having served the notice. This makes it quite clear that if a landlord serves notice he must have a genuine intention to start proceedings. He cannot serve notice merely lo threaten his tenant. The tenant benefits in that he cannot have notice hanging over his head indefinitely. If the landlord does not start proceedings within 12 months of serving notice, the amendment removes the court's jurisdiction. These are sensible amendments and I hope that hon. Members will accept them.
      Mr. Boateng: One can hardly see the benefit to a tenant of having this threat hanging over him for 12 months. Why not six months or three months? Twelve months gives ample time for a tenent to be threatened and harassed by

      1043
      his landlord. I see no reason, but perhaps the Government will give us one, for such an extended period to be given to a landlord.
      Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the reason. In our judgment, 12 months is reasonable for both parties. Clearly one could pick a different period of time but 12 months seems reasonable.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 67, in page 7, line 12, after `one', insert 'in the prescribed form'.
      No. 21, in page 7, line 19, at end insert: 'and
      (c) those proceedings will not begin later than twelve months from the date of service of the notice'.
      No. 284, in page 7, line 21, leave out 1 to 3, 6 to 8' and inset '2, 3, 6 to 8, 10A'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]
      Mr. Grist: I beg to move, amendment No. 22, in page 7, line 25, after 'or, insert 'service of'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 23.
      Mr. Grist: These amendments to clause 8 are drafting amendments. When notice is served that the landlord intends to recover possession under grounds 1 to 3, 6 to 8 and 16 in schedule 2, the notice must specify that proceedings will not begin for two months. Amendment No. 22 makes it clear that the relevant date from which the two months starts is the date on which the notice is served. Similarly, amendment No. 23 makes it clear that it is the date on which notice is served which is the relevant date for the purposes of subsection 4(B). This establishes that the earliest date specified in the notice in the case of a periodic tenancy must not fall before the date on which a landlord's notice to quit would have taken effect if served on the date on which notice under clause 8 was served. These are straightforward amendments for the purposes of clarification.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 23, in page 7, line 29 after 'of, insert `service of.

    Clause 9

      EXTENDED DISCRETION OF COURT IN POSSESSION CLAIMS
      Mr. Waldegrave: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 8, line 29, after 'dwelling-house', insert '(a)'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 25.
      Mr. Waldegrave: Perhaps I may comment briefly on parallelism with Scotland because on this occasion we propose to make a change that has been made in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988. Perhaps I may correct the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). The Scottish Bill does not make the three-months rent arrears ground discretionary. I should have known that but perhaps the hon. Gentleman should also have known it. We are moving in step on that matter and now propose to move in step on this matter.
      The two amendments ensure that the court does not have the power to suspend possession or adjourn proceedings, as it does in ordinary assured tenancies, when it is considering a shorthold possession case. It may not adjourn proceedings or suspend execution of a possession
      1044
      order when it is satisfied that the landlord is entitled to possession on any of the mandatory grounds in schedule 2 to the Bill. Shorthold is a mandatory ground for repossession even though it does not appear in the list of mandatory grounds. It is of course a mandatory case for repossession under the Rent Act 1977—case 19. Clearly the court cannot have the power to suspend possession of a shorthold tenancy. It is the essence of a shorthold tenancy that the landlord is guaranteed possession provided he has served the correct notice. The amendments give effect to this, and I trust that hon. Members will accept that this must be so. It is logical that it should be so.
      Mr. Tim Devlin: These two amendments are small and technical and have been introduced by the Government at this late stage. Many of the amendments that we are dealing with could have been tabled by the Government much earlier. On a Bill related to the housing of the nation many Back Benchers who did not have an opportunity to speak on Committee want to speak on Report about the general nature of housing law. Unfortunately, we are constrained to sit on the Benches while a number of rather trivial technical points are introduced by the Government simply because the drafting has been inadequate. I make the point at this stage by way of protest.
      Mr. McCartney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) had sat down. If the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) wishes to make a speech he is free to do so.
      Mr. McCartney: The points made by the hon. Member for Stockton, South were precisely the points that we detailed earlier. Perhaps he could tell the House how he voted when we divided the House earlier.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 25, in page 8, line 30, at end add
      `or
      (b) by virtue of subsection (1) or subsection (4) of section 19 below.'

    Clause 11

      PAYMENT OF REMOVAL EXPENSES IN CERTAIN CASES
      Amendment made: No. 285, in page 9, line 6, leave out `1 or Ground 7' and insert '7 or Ground 10A'—[Mr. Waldegrave.]
      Mr. Allan Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 227, in page 9, line 9, at end insert—
      '(1A) Where the order for possession relates to a dwelling house in respect of which structural modifications have been made for meeting the special needs of a disabled person (whether or not the tenant), then, if—

      (a) a local authority having functions under section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 provided assistance; or

      (b) such an authority would, if an application had been made, have provided assistance,

      for making those modifications, the sum shall include an amount equal to the reasonable expenses incurred in making, in respect of a dwelling to which the disabled person removes, comparable modifications which are reasonably required for meeting the disabled person's special needs.'.
      I shall be brief because the issues raised about this amendment were fully debated in Committee. This is a

      1045
      repeat of amendment No. 167 moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and debated in the House on Tuesday 19 January.
      Hon. Members might ask why if we debated it in Committee it is being debated again on Report. There are two reasons for that. First, it is a very important issue and relates to the removal expenses of replacing a disabled person's special needs in a new home. We are proposing to amend clause 11, page 9, line 9 and that clause deals with the circumstances and arrangements made when possession is sought of a home that is in public ownership and where the tenants, the residents of the home, are being rehoused elsewhere.
      The amendment is before us again because of its importance and because it is necessary to protect the needs of the disabled. When expenses are incurred in the transfer, they should be paid if the money is to cover the cost of replacing a disabled person's special needs in a new home. If the home that a person is being thrown out of by the Government has been specially adapted for the disabled by means of some grant or other under the National Assistance Act, or by the local authority, it is not right that the disabled person should suffer. Some provision should be made. It is before us because it is an issue of principle that will affect, not a massive number of people, but a significant minority, who are some of the most vulnerable in our society. Those are the disabled people who need the adaptations to their home.
      The other reason that the amendment is before us is that, if we had debated it in Committee and we had been given an unsatisfactory answer, we would have voted on it and that might have been that. If it had been debated in Committee and we had been given a satisfactory answer and the Minister had accepted the proposals, that would have been that.
      However, this is what the Minister said in Committee in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith:
      "His amendments—if I have interpreted them correctly —raise a fair point which would need careful consideration. If the hon. Gentleman is content, we shall re-examine the matter and produce appropriate proposals."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 19 January 1988; c. 344.]
      7 pm
      On the basis of what the Minister then said, the amendment was withdrawn. He has not re-examined the matter and produced appropriate proposals. It is another example of the Minister ratting on an undertaking given in Committee. Nothing has been tabled by the Government. There are no proposals here to protect disabled persons in the same respect as the amendment that we moved in Committee and we now repeat. Therefore, we ask the Minister to stand by what he said in Committee and accept the amendment.
      Mr. Waldegrave: I strongly rebut the suggestion that commitments have been made which have been broken, as has been said many times. They have not. I remember putting before the Committee the normal three types of commitment that any Minister gives. First, "If we agree it, we shall do what has been said". There have been several examples of that this afternoon. Secondly, "We shall have a look and see whether we can make that work". Thirdly, "That seems to be an interesting point, and, without commitment, we will look at it." This amendment falls into the third category.
      1046
      I am sorry if this is boring my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) who may not be interested in these issues. However, to accede to the hon. Gentleman's request, I am strongly advised by those advisers in my Department—and we have specialist advisers on matters concerning the disabled—could paradoxically have the opposite effect to what he and we want. I must say that I would not have spotted that the first time he raised it. Nobody will doubt that modifications of this kind are often crucial to disabled people. That is common ground between us. However, the work cannot be carried out without the landlord's consent. That would be severely jeopardised if the landlord was then laying himself open to having to spend possibly tens of thousands of pounds if he obliged the tenant to move later on. It would not mean that he would fork out that money; he just would not allow the changes to be carried out in the first place. Surely it is better to continue with the present position where the disabled tenant is entitled to receive grants for replacement adaptation when he goes to his new house. The hon. Gentleman will know as well as I that, under the home improvement grant regime, disabled people are eligible to a grant of up to 90 per cent. from the housing department, with social services departments meeting the rest in cases of hardship.
      We have considered this genuinely and discussed it with our disablement advisers. However, if we were to accept it, it has the paradoxical outcome that it might make it standard for landlords to refuse the work to be done in the first place and, therefore, disabled people would be worse off. That is a strong argument against accepting it.
      Mr. George Howarth: In theory, what the Minister has said sounds all very well, that the local authority housing department can provide up to 90 per cent. and that the social services department can top up the rest. However, most hon. Members will be aware that, if the capital allocation is not there, there is often a waiting list that can stretch to two years or more. The reality is that people could find themselves in the position of moving and having to wait for that kind of assistance for a long time, during which time they will be subjected to some discomfort and difficulty.
      The amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) is in some way detective. However, the Government with all their resources and all the advice available to them could surely have found a formula that would have achieved precisely what my hon. Friend and others intended with the original amendment that went through the Committee. I am bound to say that I do not find the Minister's explanation so far entirely convincing.
      Mr. Waldegrave: What the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) has said is perfectly legitimate. He is pushing to get improvements, saying that more money should go into improvement grants and the disablement grants that are part of them. That is the right part of the system. There are about £40 million worth of disabled adaptation grants awarded each year. Doubtless, he arid also many of my hon. Friends would like to see more. However, this change, which looks as though it would help, will make things worse.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 12

      INCREASES OF RENT UNDER ASSURED PERIODIC TENANCIES
      Mr. Soley: I beg to move amendment No. 180, in page 9, line 24, at end insert—
      '(1A) This section does not apply to an assured tenancy which is an assured shorthold tenancy within the meaning of section 18 below.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 184, in page 10, line 5, leave out subsection (6).
      No. 236, in page 10, line 7, at end insert—
      '(6A) Nothing in this section (or section 13 below) affects the operation of any term of a tenancy which makes provision for an increase in rent (including provision whereby the rent for a particular period will or may be greater than that for an earlier period) by an amount specified in the tenancy contract or by a percentage there specified of an amount of rent payable under the tenancy.'.
      No. 185, in clause 13, page 11, line 1, leave out subsection (5).
      No. 181, in clause 18, page 12, line 42, at end insert
      `and
      (c) in respect of which either—

      (i) a rent for the dwelling house is determined under section 20 below at the time the tenancy is granted; or

      (ii) an applicant for the determination of a rent for the dwelling house is made by the landlord not later than 14 days after the grant of the tenancy and is not withdrawn.'.

      No. 182, in page 14, line 16, leave out clause 20.
      No. 235, in clause 20, page 14, line 16, leave out from `below' to 'may' in line 20 and insert
      `the tenant under an assured shorthold tenancy.'.
      No. 321, in page 14, line 25, leave out subsection (2).
      No. 322, in page 14, line 32, leave out subsection (3).
      No. 323, in page 14, line 46, leave out from 'from' to first 'the' in line 47.
      No. 183, in page 15, line 7, leave out clause 21.
      New clause 14—Extension of access to Rent Assessment Committee—

      `(1) Notwithstanding any provision in the terms of the tenancy, an application for the registration of a rent for a dwelling-house may at any time be made to the Rent Assessment Committee by the landlord or the tenant, or jointly by the landlord and the tenant, under an assured or assured shorthold tenancy of the dwelling-house.

      (2) Any such application must be in the prescribed form and contain the prescribed particulars in addition to the rent which, it is sought to register.

      (3) Subject to subsection (4) below, where a rent for a dwelling-house has been registered under this Part of this Act no application by the tenant alone or by the landlord alone for the registration of a different rent for that dwelling-house shall be entertained before the expiry of two years from the relevant date (as defined in subsection (5) below) except on the ground that, since that date, there has been such a change in—

      (a) the condition of the dwelling-house (including the making of any improvement therein)

      (b) the terms of the tenancy

      (c) the quantity, quality or condition of any furniture provided for use under the tenancy (deterioration by fair wear and tear excluded), or

      (d)any other circumstances taken into consideration when the rent was registered or confirmed, as to make the registered rent no longer the market rent.

      (4) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (3) above, an application such as is mentioned in the subsection which is made by the landlord alone and is so made within the last 3
      1048
      months of the period of 2 years referred to in that subsection may be entertained notwithstanding that period has not expired.

      (5) In this section "the relevant date", in relation to rent which has been registered under this Part of this Act, means where on an application for the registration of different rent the registered rent has been confirmed, the date of that application or, if there was more than one such application, the date of the last of them.'.

      New clause 24—Reference of excessive rents to rent assessment committee (No.2)—

      `—(1) On receipt of an application under this section, the rent assessment committee for the registration area in which the dwelling house is situated shall determine the rent for the dwelling house.

      (2) In making a determination under this section the rent assessment committee shall have particular regard to the right of the landlord to obtain possession of the dwelling house under Section 19 above, by setting the determined rent 20 per cent. below the rent which would apply had the letting been subject to an assured tenancy other than a shorthold tenancy.

      (3) Where, on an application under this section a rent assessment committee makes a determination of a rent of a dwelling house—

      (a) the determination shall have effect from the date of the determination;

      (b) no further application may be made under this section with respect to the dwelling house until after the first anniversary of the date on which the determination takes effect.

      (4) Where a rent for a dwelling house has been determined under this section, and the dwelling house is for the time being let under an assured shorthold tenancy; the rent so determined shall be the maximum recoverable rent.

      (5) In section 20(8) of the Social Security Act 1986 (income related benefits) insert after "but"—

      "(a) in determining the rent for housing benefit purposes the authority shall treat the rent assessment committees determination of a rent under section 20 of the Housing Act 1988 as the minimum eligible rent, and

      (b).".'

      New clause 36—Extending access to rent assessment committee—

      `(1) Notwithstanding any provision in the terms of the tenancy, an application for the registration of a rent for a dwelling-house may at any time be made to the Rent Assessment Committee by the landlord or the tenant, or jointly by the landlord and the tenant, under an assured or assured shorthold tenancy of the dwelling-house.

      (2) Any such application must be in the prescribed form and contain the prescribed particulars in addition to the rent which it is sought to register.

      (3) Subject to subsection (4) below, where a rent for a dwelling-house has been registered under this Part of this Act, no application by the tenant alone or by the landlord alone for the registration of a different rent for that dwelling-house shall be entertained before the expiry of two years from the relevant date (as defined in subsection (5) below) except on the grount that, since that date, there has been such a change in —

      (a) the condition of the dwelling-house (including the making of any improvement therein);

      (b) the terms of the tenancy;

      (c) the quantity, quality or condition of any furniture provided for use under the tenancy (deterioration by fair wear and tear excluded): or

      (d) any other circumstances taken into consideration when the rent was registered or confirmed, as to make the registered rent no longer the market rent.

      (4) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (3) above, an application such as is mentioned in that subsection which is made by the landlord alone and is so made within the last three months of the period of two years referred to in that subsection may be entertained notwithstanding that period has not expired.

      (5) In this section "the relevant date" in relation to rent which has been registered under this Part of this Act, means—

      1049

      (a) where on an application for the registration of different rent the registered rent has been confirmed, the date of that application or, if there was more than one such application, the date of the last of them;

      (b) in any other case, the date on which the registration of rent took effect.

      (6) Where a market rent for a dwelling-house is registered by the Rent Assessment Committee, the rent recoverable shall be limited to the rent so registered, and the amount by which the rent payable under the tenancy exceeds that limit shall, notwithstanding anything in the agreement, be irrecoverable from the tenant.

      (7) Where a rent has been determined by the Rent Assessment Committee the rent so determined shall be the rent under the tenancy with effect from the date of determination or, if it appears to the Rent Assessment Committee that that would cause undue hardship to the tenant, with effect from such later date as the Committee direct.'.

      Mr. Soley: We come to an important part of the Bill which deals primarily with rents, the way in which rents are set and assured shorthold tenancies. We do so in the context of the Government's central aim of the Bill, which is to provide an increase in the amount of property available for people to rent. We begin in the knowledge that the Government have so far singularly failed in that aim. We know that since 1980, when the Government first started to cut back on the Rent Act, no fewer than I million homes have gone from the rented sector, half of million of which have gone from the Government's much-loved private rented sector.
      We know that the rate of decline is steeper than it has ever been, except when it declined so rapidly after the Conservative Government passed the Rent Act 1956. That was the steepest and fastest decline of all time. Most people know—including the Department of the Environment that has carried out research on the matter—that the majority of private landlords do not keep their properties empty because of Rent Acts. Only about 2·5 per cent. of people who own empty properties claim that the Rent Acts are a deterrent. The vast majority keep their properties empty either because they are intending to spend money on repairs or, more commonly, because they intend to sell them. I reiterate what I have said to the Government over a number of months. Until they do something about housing finance, they will not revive the rented sector. The collapse of the rented sector, especially the private rented sector, is caused by the absurd housing finance system in this country.
      Mr. Winnick: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Soley: Yes, but I just say once again and clearly to the Government that we are willing to consider new ways of reforming housing finance in the recognition that any new or reformed system must be fairer both within the purchased and rented sectors, and between those sectors. Any reforms must be capable of being introduced in a way that does not cause economic distress to mortgage payers or to rent payers. We need to remember that in certain parts of the country there are more people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation because of mortgage defaulting than there are for other reasons.
      Mr. Winnick: Ministers try to make excuses for what occurred under the Rent Act 1957, but there was a substantial reduction in rented accommodation in the
      1050
      private sector between the passing of the Rent Act and the incoming Labour Government in the autumn of 1964. Has my hon. Friend not read the proceedins on the Report stage and the Second Reading of the Rent Act, when the same kind of promises were made by Ministers, including Mr. Enoch Powell? They said that once the Bill became law, once deregulation occurred and landlords were not restricted, there would be an ample supply of rented accommodation. As we know, the opposite has happened.
      Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is right to correct me. I said that the year of the Act was 1956 and it was, of course, 1957. It all has to do with housing finance.
      My hon. Friend will know that the 1957 Act led to the introduction of the words "Rachman" and "Rachmanism" into the English language. No doubt, we will see that kind of thing returning with the Bill and all its works precisely because the supply of low-cost rented accommodation is drying up dramatically fast. At the same time, the Government are seeking to pass this Bill, which will make it easier for landlords to evict tenants. There will necessarily be an increase in the percentage of very bad landlords who use harassment to get people out. Such people are not really landlords—they are property speculators who want the property empty so they can sell it.
      One need not look just at London because the figures apply, to a greater or lesser extent, across the country. In Dorset, for example, houses with two or three bedrooms sell for about £90,000. The average manual worker has a weekly wage of between £80 and £90. Surely nobody believes that such people can, get mortgages to buy a house for £90,000. If, in the Secretary of State's famous words, "somebody has a spare house to let" in such an area and if that person knows that he can sell it for £90,000, he will also know that he can put the proceeds in a building society and receive about £200 per week in interest. One does not need to be an economic Tarzan to work out what the market rent will be in those circumstances. In areas such as mine, landlords expect to achieve a total of £1,000 per week in rent. That is what they can achieve either by letting the property as luxury flats or by cramming in as many people as possible, who will often pay £70 per week each and share a room. That is what is so fundamentally wrong. That is why the Bill will not work and why we have tabled this group of amendments.
      Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that house prices have been chased up and are, as he says, difficult for ordinary people to afford, because such people cannot find anywhere to rent and are, therefore, forced into buying? The whole point of the Bill is that it will provide more opportunities for people to rent.
      Mr. Soley: I saw the hon. Lady taking an interest in what I was saying. She has grasped the first point—that supply has been cut drastically—but she has not grasped the second point, which is that more new properties will not come on to the market. The supply of rented properties at the lower end of the market is decreasing.
      Mrs. Gorman: Why?

      1051
      at the lower end of the market is decreasing.
      Mrs. Gorman: Why?
      Mr. Soley: I am explaining why, if the hon. Lady will bear with me. In London alone, over half the lets are already outside the Rent Acts, yet the rate of decline of properties coming on to the market is accelerating; and that is because of housing finance. One can get more money by selling than one can by renting, without any of the hassle of being a landlord. It is no good pretending ——
      Mrs. Gorman rose——
      Mr. Soley: If the hon. Lady is going to say, "Let's take away all the hassle of being a landlord", I advise her that one would make eviction much easier and allow people to sell with vacant possession at a greater profit. If one then throws in the business expansion scheme which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced, enormous profits can be made easily by people who choose to go into that area of activity, often with no experience of being a landlord.
      If the hon. Lady wants to go into this further, she is welcome to read some of the comments that I made in Committee. I warned the Government that they had made a fundamental mistake. In a way, it is a curious mistake for a Government who claim to understand economic forces, and supply and demand. The supply of public housing in this country has been cut by two thirds since 1980—from about 90,000 completions to between 26,000 and 27,000; housing association starts are more or less marking time; and supply in the private sector has increased only slightly. It necessarily follows that there will be a combination of house price inflation plus accelerating rents.
      If the Government go ahead with the Bill, there will not only be more harassment and evictions, but rent levels will go out of control. The Government talk about dealing
      Ms. Mildred Gordon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the end result of all the procedures that he has just outlined will be an increase in homelessness, especially in London? In Tower Hamlets, 1,200 people are already living in bed and breakfast accommodation. We have people sleeping in the streets and on the floors of friends' houses. However, under one schedule of the Bill people will lose their property if they have put up friends or relatives. In Tower Hamlets, we also have the notorious case of 10 Bengali families—66 people—sleeping in a church hall until today. They are now in bed and breakfast accommodation on a 24-hour basis because the children are in danger. Such things will be exacerbated by the Bill.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend is right that such things will accelerate. I am glad that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) also spoke out against what that council has done. We will all be presented with the problem of local authorities increasingly taking measures that will result in people living in church halls. People such as the Bishop of Stepney have said, "What sort of society does this?" They are right to ask that, because what is happening is appalling.
      The Government try to dodge what is happening by saying, "What about empty council properties?" Local authorities have 2·5 per cent. of their housing stock empty. That compares with just over 3 per cent. for housing
      1052
      associations and just over 4 per cent. for the private sector. It pales into insignificance when compared with the figure of 6·9 per cent. for the Government sector. I warn the Government not to go down that road. We should deal with bad management, whether private, public, Government, local authority, housing association or anything else.
      The Government cannot dodge their responsibilities. They put the pressure on the local authorities and made it virtually impossible for even the best local authorities to manage, but at the same time they cannot get their own house in order. The percentage of empty stock in the Government sector is twice that in almost every other sector.
      Mr. Robert G. Hughes: While we all deplore the fact that any property remains empty, whether owned by the Government, councils or in private hands, the fact that is uncomfortable for the hon. Gentleman is that empty council properties are concentrated in the areas of greatest need, in places such as Newham and Tower Hamlets. Opposition Members should seek to do something about that before complaining about the Government.
      Mr. Soley: That issue is not a problem or embarrassment to me or I would not have raised it, but I have raised it and will continue to raise it in the media and to the embarrassment of the Government. Conservative Members are getting into difficulties because they cannot dodge the responsibility, not only for the figures for Government properties but for creating this situation. They should remember one basic fact. In 1979, hardly anyone was in bed and breakfast accommodation, whereas now the figures of the homeless in that position have literally doubled. In 1979, hardly anyone slept in cardboard boxes, except those with special problems such as those who were recovering from mental illness, alcoholics and drug addicts; in 1979 such people could always be found places—but not any more. Some people came to see me tonight in the House of Commons saying, "I do not have anywhere to sleep tonight." One could refer them to hostels and to places such as Centrepoint, but they are full. Such things have never happened before—and not only under Labour Governments. They did not happen even under previous Tory Governments. What have Conservative Members got to write home about?
      Mr. Spearing rose——
      Mr. Tony Banks rose——
      Mrs. Gorman rose——
      Mr. Soley: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
      Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity of putting the record straight about Newham. Is the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) not aware that 1,000 flats in defective tower blocks count towards that total? Such buildings were forced on local authorities by Governments of all political persuasions. The Secretary of State persists in including Taylor Woodrow blocks in that total, together with empty blocks which are having to be cleared for improvement purposes and those that are unfit because we do not have the money to repair them because the Government do not

      1053
      allow us to use our own money. Why does the hon. Gentleman not insist that, when Secretaries of State make misleading statements, they bear such facts in mind?
      Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend is right. I do not want to stray too far from the point although, in effect, this matter is part of the amendment, but it is true that, more than any other Government, the Macmillan Government—the only Tory Government who at least agreed with the idea of building enough homes to supply the need in this country —told local authorities to cut corners so that they could erect as many units as possible. It is also true that the present Government have the audacity—this applies to what the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) said—to have between 40 and 50 flats empty for up to nine years in my constituency. Some are Victorian cottages with gardens and four or five bedrooms, but the whole lot is being bulldozed to make way for landscaping and car parking around Wormwood Scrubs prison. That is what we get from the Government who then say, "What about the 2·5 per cent. of empty local authority properties" compared with the 6·9 per cent. of Government properties when their only answer is not to put people into their properties but to bulldoze them and put cars and trees there instead.
      Mrs. Gorman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I wanted to talk about bed and breakfast, before the hon. Gentleman left that subject. I was on Westminster city council as vice chairman of housing for four years. I should like to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the increase in bed and breakfast accommodation since 1979 has been affected by two pieces of legislation, the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and the extension of housing benefit to the private sector.
      I witnessed the enormous increase in the demand for bed and breakfast, ostensibly homelessness, which was directly related to the fact that those two pieces of legislation encouraged some people to make themselves homeless, and others to take on accommodation that Was vastly beyond their means because they were under the impression that the council would pay. We were constantly unable to meet their demands, so the bed and breakfast circumstances developed out of those two pieces of legislation.
      Mr. Soley: If I were representing the Conservative party on the committee of Westminster city council I would resign. Certainly I would not admit it here, as it is one of the most appalling housing authorities. What it has been doing is quite criminal. Perhaps I should be careful about my words, but its actions are quite unacceptable. When it keeps properties empty in order to try to flog them off, instead of putting in them people who are in bed and breakfast, the hon. Lady has only herself to blame if she finds that she is picking up the bill.
      What is so atrocious about that judgment is that until the Government came to power hardly anyone was in bed and breakfast. That is a unique factor of this Government. The hon. Lady is really saying, "Let us get rid of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act, and then, somehow or other, we will not be able to see the homeless." The fact that Centrepoint has shown in its report that no fewer than half the people who came to it had been in care and therefore have no homes to go back to does not trouble the hon. Lady. She thinks that they can get back into their cardboard boxes and stay there.
      1054
      The amendments seek to do no more than to limit the damage that the Government are doing through the Bill. Amendment No. 180 ensures that rent setting for shortholds is subject only to clause 20, the assured shorthold tenancy procedure, and not to clause 12 which is the assured tenancy procedure. The assured shorthold procedure is, of course, at the heart of the Government's deregulation programme. It is as near as they can get to saying, "Let us do more of what we did in 1957. Let us go further down that same disastrous road.".
      All new landlords have been given a choice. They can let under an assured tenancy at a rent which is negotiated between the landlord and the tenant and which has a slight degree of assurance above a shorthold tenancy—but is still vulnerable on the grounds referred to in the schedules to the Bill—or they can choose a shorthold letting with no security beyond six months but with a right to seek registration of an appropriate rent. The basis of the Government's thinking, as set out in various documents, including the White Paper, is that if they had assured tenancies, they believe that new properties would come flooding on to the market. There is no evidence that that would happen. It is their belief that because those people were letting with less security they should get less rent. But there is nothing to control the rent.
      The majority of landlords will not use the assured tenancy. There is no point in doing so. If one is a landlord, it is far more sensible to use the shorthold tenancy and keep renewing it, as one can evict without going to court and without giving any reason after six months and one can charge the same rent. We are trying to limit that ability. The shorthold landlord has an absolute right to repossess; he does not need to give a reason but can evict at the end of six months, or an even shorter period.
      Amendment No. 181 makes it necessary to have a rent determined for a shorthold tenancy, and if it is not determined an assured tenancy comes into effect. If the Government are serious about having lower rents for shorthold tenancies, they must accept that if rents are not lower an assured tenancy should result. It is meaningless to expect a tenant in a shorthold tenancy to apply to the rent assessment committee. First. what tenant will do that knowing that, whatever the rent assessment committee decides, the landlord will merely evict him? As soon as he makes that application he will be out. The landlord can d o that without any problem.
      We are trying to ensure a real difference between tenures. Amendment No. 182 and new clause 24 allow the rent assessment committee to determine a rent at 20 per cent. below the rent of a similar assured tenancy. The rent must also apply to the dwelling and not just to the tenant, because we must remember that the tenant changes. If the landlord was able to charge a lower rent and, as soon as the tenant moved out, to try the same trick again, clearly that would be unacceptable. There are many good landlords who are quite willing to honour the spirit of the law, but Conservative Members must grasp the fact—all the evidence is within the Department of the Environment —that all the evidence of abuse is in the private sector. It is very serious abuse and the Government's own inquiries have demonstrated that.
      It is no surprise to find tenants of private landlords queuing up to get into council accommodation and housing associations because they know that they are better and more secure. That is why there is so much demand for those properties. yet, as I have already said,

      1055
      the supply is being cut. The amendment also ensures the critical point that determined rents should be eligible for full housing benefit, as the other clever thing that the Government have slipped in is that the tenant will not necessarily be eligible for full housing benefit so that the desperate cases that so many hon. Members on both sides of the House have received recently will continue. Elderly people, handicapped people and others will continue having their housing benefit cut dramatically and eventually having the Government doing an about-turn for a limited period in a limited way so that the rent losses are maximised to £2·50—it can be more than that in certain circumstances—for two years at the most and probably only for one year. I have had a case of a 65-year-old diabetic lady having her housing benefit cut by £10·81 per week, from about £40 a week to about £30 a week. What are people supposed to do at that level of benefit?
      That is what makes the Conservative party a basically immoral party. Whatever it does it cannot square the circle that there is something profoundly morally wrong when the Government can find £400 a week to give to millionaires yet they cannot find £10 a week to give to an elderly person who is already dependent on state support. That is what makes them profoundly and morally wrong and that is why they will have considerable difficulty in justifying such an act to the British people.
      Amendment No. 183 simply ensures that shorthold tenants retain the right to go to the rent assessment committee and that removal of that right would have to be laid before Parliament. If we consider it a right, it should be protected, as we have learnt from bitter experience that under this Government we have to provide such protection.
      Amendment No. 236 applies the wording of clause 24(5) of the Housing (Scotland) Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that it is one example of Scottish legislation which he feels able to accept. It empowers a landlord to insert a rent review clause in a tenancy agreement and state a percentage increase or a specific increase instead of using a vague clause about increases.
      Amendment No. 235 is exactly the same as Government amendment No. 44 to the Housing (Scotland) Bill, but I acknowledge, and the Minister probably already has spotted, that that is a fallback position for us. New clauses 14 and 36 extend access to the rent assessment committee to protect low-income tenants in the private sector by placing limits on rents charged by landlords. We do that by granting access to the committee at any time and limiting rents for assured tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies at market levels. Without that, low-income tenants would be denied access to the committee in certain circumstances. Amendments Nos. 184 and 185 are consequential.
      So long as the Government cut the supply, the crisis in low-cost rented accommodation will increase, the problems in the south-east will escalate and house price inflation will continue to escalate. The next Labour Government will reintroduce a system in which rents are set independently of the landlord because while there is a shortage of supply there can be no alternative.
      1056
      I predict that the Conservative Government will learn from the bitter experience of other people's sad cases, as they learnt in 1957, that it is nonsense to apply a simple market mechanism to housing as though it was a can of beans—as a Conservative Member described it—and one could simply go from one supermarket to another if one did not like one's landlord. Housing and land are not in elastic supply. If the Government are busy cutting the supply, the crisis will necessarily worsen. We shall reverse that in due course. Meanwhile, in order to limit the damage, I ask the House to accept our amendment.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has rehearsed the Labour party's hostility, which is well known, to increasing the supply of housing by getting the market to work and to helping people who need help to purchase in that market. That is the difference between us. We endlessly rehearsed the arguments about 1957, in Committee and elsewhere. It is worth drawing the attention of my hon. Friends to the fact that in 1957 the position was different in many key respects. First, there was no proper housing benefit system and, secondly, the Rent Act 1957 proposed to deregulate existing tenancies. I know that some of my hon. Friends would like to follow that route, but it was not shown to be wise when it was undertaken.
      The hon. Gentleman speaks as if the present system has been a success, but it has not. He speaks as if the Rent Acts have driven out bad landlords—the successors to Mr. Rachman—but they have not. We all know that bad landlords still exist and it may well be that the widening gap between fair rents under the Rent Acts and the values of property has provided a doubled and redoubled incentive for bad landlords to get people out. But I hope that we can look with more agreement later to additional powers which will help local authorities to deal with bad landlords. The underlying cause of them is surely that, once a property has a Rent Act tenant in it, it becomes extremely uneconomic for the landlord. That is the consequence and the cause of unacceptable practices.
      We cannot and should not attack the vested rights of those with Rent Act tenancies, but we can avoid making this mistake in future. I remind the hon. Gentleman, who is learned in the history of all this, that between the wars when the regime was one where new lets were decontrolled, although rent control existed after 1919 and continued for most other lettings, 1 million houses were built for rent. That met a large part of the need at the time, which was not unlike that which we have lived through. It was a time of major social change, major demands for the mobility of labour and major structural changes in the whole economy. It remains a fact that Britain is almost alone among the economies of western Europe in having no viable private rented sector, and the Government's purpose is to put that right.
      We firmly oppose amendment No. 184 on the grounds that we seek to return to a system where the landlord and tenant should be free to make agreements and to vary them by agreement. We also oppose new clauses 24 and 36, which would provide that a rent determined by the rent assessment committee would be the statutory maximum recoverable rent. Again, that lies completely outside our intentions. If the landlord and tenant agree to change the rent, they should be free to do so.
      Mr. Boateng: Does the Minister not recognise the point that we have made time and again: that there is no way that one can compare the position of somebody desperate for accommodation with that of somebody going into Tesco or Fine Fare and deciding whether to buy a bunch of bananas? There is a fundamental difference between the two. Someone looking for accommodation is not in a position of equality with someone owning it. It is fundamentally unfair in the midst of the current housing crisis to expect such people to behave as they might in a completely free market. This is not the real world; it is a nightmare world of the Government's creation which they are imposing on the current housing crisis and which will make it even worse.
      Mr. Waldegrave: The best world to move towards is that which I think the hon. Member for Hammersmith referred to on Second Reading. when he quoted Mr. Aneurin Bevan as saying that the best form of rent control was three families chasing four lets or nine families chasing 10 lets. If we can increase the supply, that restores the equality which the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) wants. In many parts, the pressures to which he rightly refers from his experience in London are not present and the market will work well. I am not for a moment saying that the solution to housing pressures in the high pressure areas will be solved by bringing up the private rented sector. It will make some contribution, especially where the market is under less pressure, but we must seek other methods, in ownership, shared ownership and the various forms of subsidised ownership in high-pressure areas. I do not disagree with him on that.
      Mr. Battle: The Minister will remember that in Committee there was a particular case before the courts relating to Mr. Hoogstraten and that Members on both sides expressed anxiety about it. We were informed that the Government would examine the transcript because that landlord was cleared of all allegations which we might have thought were appropriate, given his practices. Our point was that the provisions of the Bill would make it even easier for that sort of activity to be undertaken and would not help to curtail it. How, as a result of the Minister's inquiries into that case, can he reassure us that we shall not return to the worst excesses of private landlordism?
      Mr. Waldegrave: It is a little difficult to comment on a case when a jury has found a particular accused innocent, and I do not want to misuse the privilege of this House to do so. I invite the hon. Gentleman to read the judge's summing up of that case, as my officials and I have done, because he may be surprised by the outcome. Later we shall return to several measures, some of which will be welcomed by the Labour party, which will help to ensure that those unacceptable practices are made much more difficult.
      At present there is no meeting of minds between us over this, but I hope that if over the next few years we can show that the marginalised private rented sector, which exists in many areas, can be strengthened by the arrival of new money, properly managed and providing good rented accommodation, we may find some meeting of minds.
      Mr. Bradley: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Waldegrave: I shall give way when I have finished this little section.
      1058
      I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Hammersmith does not wish to see good accommodation from whatever source which meets housing needs being driven from the market again. He has challenged us to see what will happen, and I accept that challenge. This Bill, with its safeguards, will over the next few years bring forward more rented accommodation, which will benefit not only the most vulnerable people, about whom he is rightly anxious, but mobile workers, managers and others in the modern economy.
      We reject these amendments. I will have another look at amendment No. 235, if the hon. Member will not then accuse me of having been disgracefully making policy on the hoof, but the other amendments go to the heart of the Bill and would destroy its whole purpose. We reject them wholeheartedly.
      Mr. Bradley: The Minister said that he would give way, so I was assuming that he has sat down to allow me to intervene.
      Because of the time element, we have not gone into detail on new clause 14 but, picking up what the Minister said about our thrust in Committee being to try to shift the onus back to give rights and protection to the tenants against the landlord, the purpose of this new clause is to redress that balance and give some rights and security to the tenants. If the Minister believes his position to be. correct, that there will be voluntary agreement between landlord and tenant, why will he not accept through new clause 14 access by the tenant to a rent assessment committee? If he is correct, there will be no great demand for access to a rent assessment committee by the tenant because voluntary agreement will have been reached between landlord and tenant. If he is so convinced that that voluntary agreement will be arrived at, surely he should allow the opportunity for that isolated case, in his world, in which the tenant may want to go to a rent. assessment committee for protection of his position.
      Mr. Waldegrave: It might be convenient if, with the leave of the House, I spoke again later to answer that and other points.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister might care to add to the points that he will deal with the amendments in this group in my name, to which he did not allude in his response.
      The Minister says that he believes—I am not sure whether he does believe—in deregulation of the private sector, the principal purpose being to bring back into use currently empty property. The solution to that problem is not in any way to be found in deregulating present privately let property. One of the mischiefs that the amendments that I have tabled seek to deal with in part is the suggestion that more property can be brought back into use by deregulating rents not only in relation to property currently empty but in relation to property that is currently let. Those people who are currently letting property presumably find that they are getting at least an adequate income by doing so; otherwise they would have stopped doing it when they had the opportunity.
      If the Government told the House that their principal objective was to get empty properties in the private sector back into use and that they believed that less rent control was necessary in relation to that sector, their argument

      1059
      would be more credible. The Secretary of State, in a press release published, I think, on the day the Bill was published—20 November 1987—said:
      "The legislation would allow landlords to charge market rents on all new lettings. This is the key which will help unlock the doors of over 500,000 empty private properties in this country."
      If that was the intention then, the Government should hold firm to it and use this part of the Bill only in relation to property at present empty; they should not have a market place free-for-all.
      I would argue that the Minister has a case for saying that the present fair rent system works in a very unfair and arbitrary way. Academic studies have shown that it works differently in different parts of the country and that one cannot easily get to the bottom of how it works in any one place. But there is all the difference in the world between keeping some form of licensing or control system and doing away with it altogether, and the Government are proposing here to do away with it altogether.
      The amendments that I have tabled, Nos. 321, 322, 323 and 324—I apologise for my cold.
      Mr. George Howarth: Send for Dr. Owen.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Hughes: I am trying to ignore a malicious suggestion from my right. I might send for a glass of water. It would be slightly more useful at the moment.
      Mr. Howarth: This water will be more useful than Dr. Owen.
      Mr. Hughes: Thank you very much.
      The amendments that I have tabled seek to make the simple case that there should be an ability to go to a rent assessment committee at any time. It is imperative, if people are not to be completely priced out of the market, that the ability to regulate rents, as well as to have acceptable property, is preserved.
      I ask the Minister to address these amendments and give an adequate, and I hope positive, reply.
      Mr. George Howarth: The Minister peversely touched on the real reasons for this Bill when he said a few moments ago, talking about the inter-war period, that the difficulty has been the effect upon the provision of housing and the mobility of labour. It seems to me that everything about this Bill has to do with providing greater mobility. Certainly according to the utterances of the Secretary of State that has been a key factor in the development of this Bill.
      The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)—who I see has grown bored with this debate and left her seat —started to probe some of these issues. The Government will not create a real housing market, for many of the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) gave earlier. The whole burden of public policy is working to support owner-occupation and to make it so attractive that, no matter how they change the terms, the advantage of being an owner-occupier will be great. This policy will be working for the people who cannot afford to enter that market. The only way to create the kind of market to which the Minister so frequently refers is by going down the road that the hon. Member for Billericay started to advocate, and the
      1060
      difficulty with that—as the Minister knows—is that so many people would be left outside the market living under cardbox sheets on the embankment that it would be unacceptable to the country as a whole.
      That is the kernel of the difficulty that the Minister faces: the Secretary of State wants to go down the market road, but the Minister appears to be trying to modify the worst excesses of that. That is why the Bill is neither fish nor fowl—although it is foul in another sense. It will not achieve what it set out to do, nor will it make the position of existing or future tenants any better. The Bill is a mess and should be taken back.
      Mr. Winnick: We are speaking against a background in which less than half a mile from here tonight people will once again be spending their sleeping hours in cardboard boxes. There are many thousands of people in squalid bed-and-breakfast accommodation, not only in London by any means, and the amount of housing misery is worse than for a very long time indeed. Ministers tell us, of course, that they are going to help to resolve the problem by deregulation, making the market more flexible, giving an incentive to landlords to rent, and all the rest of it.
      Market rents will undoubtedly mean that many properties will be let at sums far in excess of that which a person would pay if he were able to obtain a mortgage. It is precisely because such people are not in a position to obtain a mortgage or to obtain local authority accommodation that they find themselves in those circumstances. Last November, advertisements appearing in the London Evening Standard showed that some properties were available for renting, ranging from £130 to £140 per week. There were a few one and two-bedroom flats available from £30 to £70 per week. Is the Minister telling the House that market rents will be less than that? The likelihood is that they will be more.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) referred to the Rent Act 1957. As I said in an intervention, Ministers made promises at the time that the Act would allow far greater flexibility in the housing market and provide more rented accommodation. That is very much the argument of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). I have some figures for the Minister on which he might like to comment. Between April 1951 and June 1956, before the Rent Act, the private rented sector lost 800,000 dwellings, which was an average loss of 160,000 per year. Between June 1957 and December 1961, the private rented sector lost 1·3 million dwellings, which was an average loss of 236,000 dwellings per year. Those figures are from the report of the 1971 Francis committee on the Rent Act.
      Those figures illustrate that the last time a Tory Government deregulated, far from providing more rented accommodation, they ensured that a far larger number of rented dwellings were lost. That is why we take the view that the Bill is unlikely to provide more rented accommodation. Once landlords know that there is no ceiling on rents and that market values are to apply, they will charge the utmost. We are told that regulated tenants will be in no danger. However, once the property owner recognises that, when the regulated tenant leaves, the property can be relet at market rents or sold with vacant possession, the incentive will be there for Rachmanism, alsatian dogs, and all that we associate with the Rent Act 1957. This week, the Minister has been publicising the Bill's provisions against eviction and harassment and for

      1061
      compensation. However, they will not be of much use to a tenant who is on the streets and unable to find accommodation, and who is in no position financially to obtain a mortgage.
      That is why I and my hon. Friends believe this Bill to be totally inadequate. It will not in any way help those people whom I described at the beginning of my remarks, living in great misery and under stress in housing which is a disgrace to this country. We should at least provide certain basic safeguards.
      When moving the amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith said that one essential safeguard related to shorthold tenants. I take the view, and it will be seen whether I am right or wrong, that most of the new tenancies created under the Bill will be shorthold. They will not be assured tenancies because landlords will take the view that their tenants should have the least amount of security. Why should they give them more protection and security? Tenants should have the opportunity to go before the rent assessment committee. That is an essential safeguard, and one that is far more important than the provisions which the Minister has been publicising this week. For that reason, I hope that my hon. Friend's amendment, and those grouped with it, will have the support of the House.
      Mr. Boateng: I can be brief because I have been reflecting on the logic of the Government's proposals in the White Paper and the way in which they have been followed through in the Bill. I did not need to reflect long, because the Bill falls short when it comes to following through the minimal logic contained in the White Paper.
      At its heart, the White Paper seemed to be proposing —and we saw in Committee how the Minister departed from this—that a distinction should be made between shorthold tenancies and assured tenancies. The logic of the White Paper, such as it was, envisaged a two-tier scheme, whereby the landlord chose between giving the tenant security of tenure and receiving a market rent or granting only minimal security but accepting a degree of rent control. As Government Members may have realised, the Bill does not achieve that. In practice, it is unlikely that there will be any significant difference between rent levels under the two schemes. What possible reason could a landlord ever have for granting an assured tenancy when he could grant a shorthold tenancy? The magic of the assured shorthold tenancy, from the point of view of the grubby little landlords whom the Government seek to placate with this measure, is that the only thing which is assured and short about it is the shortness of the assurance, so far as concerns the tenant. No sooner is he in than he will be out again, unless he negotiates a higher rent.
      We want from the Minister the answers to three questions. They are all simple and it will not take me long to ask them. I hope that the people with notes for the Minister are ready to pass them down, although I see no sign of the hod carrier. First, what in practice will be the difference in rent levels between the two schemes? Will registered rents under the shorthold scheme be an average of 10, 20, or 30 per cent. below market levels? Secondly, why should a landlord choose to let on an assured shorthold tenancy? Thirdly, what incentive or protection will there be for a shorthold tenant to apply for his rent to
      1062
      be registered? In the last four or five minutes of this debate, may we have the Minister's answers to those three simple questions?
      Mr. Waldegrave: I will end with the questions put by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boaterig), although they are not profound. The differences in rent levels will depend on the state of the market in a particular place. The answer to the question why someone should let for assured tenancies is that in many parts of the country, though not in large parts of the hon. Member's constituency where the market is in relative balance, house prices are falling, as the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) knows. That creates its own problems. In the areas where there is more housing stock than there is demand, people will be looking for tenants. The hoot will be on the other foot. I recognise that in the places where supply is constrained, the Bill will not solve all problems. In those places there will probably be little difference between the rent levels in shorthold and assured tenancies.
      As for the hon. Member's third question, the answer is set out in the Bill. The rent assessment committee can assess a market rent. That is what it can impose in those conditions.
      8 pm
      Mr. Boateng: What about the second question? The Minister has moved ingeniously from the first to the third question. The question which he has failed to answer is why should a landlord choose to let an assured tenancy as opposed to a shorthold tenancy? Would the Minister do it?
      Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member has suffered from a short attack of deafness. I answered that point. There will be plenty of places where the demand will not be of the kind that the hon. Member is used to dealing with in his constituency. There, tenants will be able to shop around. In those cases landlords will be competing to get good tenants. One thing a landlord will be able to offer is an assured tenancy. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. He should not base his judgment on the whole of the market or on the areas where high pressures mean that the landlord is in a seller's market.
      New clauses 36 and 14, which are roughly the same, would both provide a facility for a tenant to apply to the rent assessment committee at any time rather than only in the specified circumstances laid down in clause 12. Obviously this goes to the heart of the principle that the parties should agree the initial rent between themselves for the entire term in the case of a fixed-term tenancy and for the first 12 months in the case of a periodic tenancy. That is why those amendments cannot be accepted.
      As regards amendment No. 323, to require that the rent assessment committee's determination of a rent should in all cases be back-dated to the date of application would seem odd and unnecessarily rigid. Whether or not back-dating was justified would depend on the circumstances of the case. It would not seem fair that a landlord should be required to pay back substantial excess rent where the tenant had been responsible for delaying the proceedings. The right course is to leave the matter to the committee's discretion.
      These are lesser matters than the matters of major disagreement between us. We agree that it is a major failing of the housing system that there are in the private rented sector about 500,000 empty properties; the hon.

      1063
      Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) quoted roughly the right figure. I do not believe that all those are kept off the market through fear of the Rent Acts, although a large proportion may be. All that the Opposition parties have argued is based on the premise that the system which they invented is working. It most patently is not. That is why we seek to reform it. We shall greatly help those who need homes by reforming it.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 218.

      Division No. 346]

      [8.02 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Galloway, George

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Allen, Graham

      George, Bruce

      Alton, David

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Anderson, Donald

      Gordon, Mildred

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Graham, Thomas

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Barron, Kevin

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Battle, John

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Beckett, Margaret

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

      Henderson, Doug

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hinchliffe, David

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Home Robertson, John

      Blair, Tony

      Hood, Jimmy

      Boateng, Paul

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Boyes, Roland

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Bradley, Keith

      Howells, Geraint

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hoyle, Doug

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Buckley, George J.

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Illsley, Eric

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Ingram, Adam

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Janner, Greville

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      John, Brynmor

      Canavan, Dennis

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Clay, Bob

      Leighton, Ron

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Cohen, Harry

      Lewis, Terry

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Cousins, Jim

      Loyden, Eddie

      Crowther, Stan

      McAllion, John

      Cryer, Bob

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cummings, John

      McCartney, Ian

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Cunningham, Dr John

      McKelvey, William

      Darling, Alistair

      McLeish, Henry

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      McTaggart, Bob

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Madden, Max

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Dewar, Donald

      Marek, Dr John

      Dixon, Don

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Doran, Frank

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Eastham, Ken

      Martlew, Eric

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Maxton, John

      Fatchett, Derek

      Meale, Alan

      Fearn, Ronald

      Michael, Alun

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Fisher, Mark

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Flynn, Paul

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Foster, Derek

      Morley, Elliott

      Foulkes, George

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Mullin, Chris

      1064

      Nellist, Dave

      Skinner, Dennis

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      O'Brien, William

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Snape, Peter

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Soley, Clive

      Patchett, Terry

      Spearing, Nigel

      Pike, Peter L.

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Prescott, John

      Stott, Roger

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Strang, Gavin

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Straw, Jack

      Randall, Stuart

      Turner, Dennis

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Wall, Pat

      Reid, Dr John

      Wallace, James

      Richardson, Jo

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Robertson, George

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Winnick, David

      Rogers, Allan

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Worthington, Tony

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wray, Jimmy

      Ruddock, Joan

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Frank Cook.

      Short, Clare

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Curry, David

      Amess, David

      Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

      Amos, Alan

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Day, Stephen

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Devlin, Tim

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Ashby, David

      Dicks, Terry

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Dover, Den

      Baldry, Tony

      Dunn, Bob

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Durant, Tony

      Batiste, Spencer

      Dykes, Hugh

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Bendall, Vivian

      Evennett, David

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Fallon, Michael

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Farr, Sir John

      Body, Sir Richard

      Favell, Tony

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Boswell, Tim

      Forman, Nigel

      Bottomley, Peter

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Forth, Eric

      Bowis, John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Brazier, Julian

      Franks, Cecil

      Bright, Graham

      Freeman, Roger

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      French, Douglas

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

      Fry, Peter

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Gale, Roger

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Gardiner, George

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Gill, Christopher

      Burns, Simon

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Burt, Alistair

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Butcher, John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Butler, Chris

      Gow, Ian

      Butterfill, John

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gregory, Conal

      Carrington, Matthew

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Carttiss, Michael

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Grist, Ian

      Chapman, Sydney

      Ground, Patrick

      Churchill, Mr

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Hannam, John

      Colvin, Michael

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Conway, Derek

      Harris, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Couchman, James

      Hayward, Robert

      Cran, James

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      1065

      Heddle, John

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Rost, Peter

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Holt, Richard

      Ryder, Richard

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Scott, Nicholas

      Howard, Michael

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Sims, Roger

      Hunter, Andrew

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Irvine, Michael

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Irving, Charles

      Speller, Tony

      Jack, Michael

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Jackson, Robert

      Squire, Robin

      Janman, Tim

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Steen, Anthony

      Key, Robert

      Stern, Michael

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Knowles, Michael

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Stokes, John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sumberg, David

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Summerson, Hugo

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Lord, Michael

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Maclean, David

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Maples, John

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Tracey, Richard

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Tredinnick, David

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Trippier, David

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Trotter, Neville

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Needham, Richard

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Neubert, Michael

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Nicholls. Patrick

      Walden, George

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Waller, Gary

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Page, Richard

      Watts, John

      Paice, James

      Wells, Bowen

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Wheeler, John

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Pawsey, James

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wood, Timothy

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Woodcock, Mike

      Price, Sir David

      Yeo, Tim

      Redwood, John

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Renton, Tim

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Riddick, Graham

      Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Waldegrave: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 9, line 34, at end insert
      'and
      (c) if the rent under the tenancy has previously been increased by virtue of a notice under this subsection or a determination under section 13 below, the first anniversary of the date on which the increased rent took effect.'
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 29.
      Mr. Waldegrave: As the Bill stands, subsection (5) of clause 12 provides that when a landlord has served a notice of increased rent under that clause he is precluded from serving a further notice for at least a year beginning on the date of service of the original notice. Bearing in mind that the actual increase in rent may not take place until some
      1066
      time after the notice has been served—for example, when the tenant made an application to the rent assessment committee and the committee exercised its power to defer the date of increase—the provision as drafted could create a situation in which a tenant is faced with two rent increases taking effect under these provisions in less than 12 months. It is wrong that that could happen.
      On reflection, it seems to us that the 12-month limitation should more properly relate to the date of the actual rent increase rather than the date of service of the notice. That is what the two amendments taken together are designed to achieve. The effect will be to ensure that, once a rent increase has taken effect under the procedure in clauses 12 or 13, the tenant cannot be faced with a further increase for at least a year. Of course, the parties could agree between themselves an increase.
      I hope that this amendment will be welcomed.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 15, in page 9, line 43, after `tenant', insert
      `by an application in the prescribed form'.
      No. 29, in page 10, leave out lines 1 to 4.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

    Clause 13

      DETERMINATION OF RENT BY RENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
      Mr. Grist: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 10 line 29, leave out 'an' and insert, 'a relevant'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 31.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Grist: As drafted, clause 13(2) provides that, in determining the rent under an assured tenancy, the rent assessment committee is to take no account of any increase in value attributable to an improvement carried out in specified circumstances by a person who, at that time, was the tenant.
      On reflection, it seems to us that the definition of improvement in this context needs to be drawn somewhat more tightly. It would seem inequitable that, when a tenant carries out improvements to a property and then subsequently surrenders his tenancy, a tenant under a subsequent letting should derive financial benefit from such improvements by virtue of the rent assessment committee being required to disregard them in determining the rent under the later tenancy.
      We therefore propose to add to clause 13(2) a broadly similar provision to that in the comparable section of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. That will have the effect of confining the disregard requirement, either to an improvement carried out during the tenancy to which the notice of rent increase relates, or, alternatively, to an improvement carried out not more than 21 years before the date of service of the notice, provided that at all times since the improvement was carried out the property has been let under an assured tenancy and, on the coming to the end of an assured tenancy at any time during that period, the tenant—or, in the case of joint tenants, at least one of them—did not quit the property.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 31, in page 10, line 39, at end add—
      '( )For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) above, in relation to a notice which is referred by a tenant as mentioned in subsection (1) above, an improvement is a relevant improvement if either it was carried out during the tenancy to which the notice relates or the following conditions are satisfied, namely—

      (a) that it was carried out not more than twenty-one years before the date of service of the notice; and

      (b) that, at all times during the period beginning when the improvement was carried out and ending on the date of service of the notice, the dwelling-house has been let under an assured tenancy; and

      (c) that, on the coming to an end of an assured tenancy at any time during that period, the tenant (or, in the case of joint tenants, at least one of them) did not quit.'—[Mr. Grist.]

      Mr. Grist: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 10, line 50, at end insert—
      `( ) In any case where—

      (a) a rent assessment committee have before them at the same time the reference of a notice under section 6(2) above relating to a tenancy (in this subsection referred to as "the section 6 reference") and the reference of a notice under section 12(2) above relating to the same tenancy (in this subsection referred to as "the section 12 reference"), and

      (b) the date specified in the notice under section 6(2) above is not later than the first day of the new period specified in the notice under section 12(2) above, and

      (c) the committee propose to hear the two references together,

      the committee shall make a determination in relation to the section 6 reference before making their determination in relation to the section 12 reference and, accordingly, in such a case the reference in subsection (1)(c) above to the terms of the tenancy to which the notice relates shall be construed as a reference to those terms as varied by virtue of the determination made in relation to the section 6 reference.'
      As drafted clause 13(1) provides for the rent assessment committee to determine the rent under an assured tenancy by reference to a notional tenancy, whose terms, other than in respect of the rent, are the same as those of the tenancy under consideration.
      This amendment is designed to clarify the procedure to be followed by the rent assessment committee when it has before it a reference under clause 6 relating to the terms of a tenancy and a reference under clause 12 relating to the rent payable under that tenancy. The amendment provides that, when the date specified in the notice served under clause 6 is no later than the first day of the new period specified in the notice served under clause 12, and the rent assessment committee proposes, to consider the two references together, it shall make the determination of terms first and then proceed to determine the rent—as provided for in clause 13(l)—on the basis of the terms as varied by virtue of the determination previously made.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 76, in page 11, line 13, at end insert
      `or if the tenancy has come to an end'.

    Clause 18

      ASSURED SHORTHOLD TENANCIES
      Mr. Waldegrave: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 12, line 38, at beginning insert
      `Subject to subsection (2A) below'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 229, in page 12, line 42, at end insert
      `and
      (c) which falls into one of the following categories—

      (i) the tenant was not, immediately before the grant of the assured shorthold tenancy, a secure tenant of the same or substantially the same accommodation, or

      (ii) the tenant was not, immediately before the grant of the assured shorthold tenancy, an assured tenant of the same or substantially the same accommodation.'.

      Government amendment No. 34.
      Mr. Waldegrave: The amendments stem from an interesting and important debate in Committee where the issue was whether there was a case for a provision which would prevent shorthold tenancies from being offered to existing assured tenants or to secure tenants who transferred to private sector landlords under some scheme or another. We acknowledged that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) raised a legitimate. point of interest and we said that we would consider it further.
      I want first to consider the position of existing assured tenants. One of the basic principles of the new regime is that, once a tenant has been granted a full assured tenancy, he should have the benefit of long-term security of tenure of a kind broadly comparable to that currently available under the Rent Act 1977. We accept that an unscrupulous landlord might try to undermine that protection for the tenant by persuading him to accept a new tenancy that was designed by virtue of the shorthold procedures as a shorthold. An unwary tenant might agree to such a proposal without realising its full significance and thus forfeit his long-term security.
      We believe that it is right to guard against that outcome by providing that a tenancy cannot qualify as a shorthold tenancy where it is granted to someone who was hitherto a full assured tenant and where the landlord immediately beforehand was the same person as the landlord granting the new tenancy. That is the purpose of amendments Nos. 33 and 34.
      Amendment No. 229 has the same objective, but is unnecessary. Although I do not want to criticise, because the Government should have more drafting resources at their command, amendment No. 229 is slightly less generous because the shorthold prohibition would be confined to the accommodation currently occupied by the assured tenant. Under the Government's amendment, prohibition would apply to any property where the landlord is the same person.
      Amendment No. 229 is unnecessary for an interesting reason. As the law stands, it would be technically impossible for a secure tenant transferring to a private landlord to be granted a legal shorthold tenancy. The landlord taking over public sector housing would not be able to grant legal tenancies to the occupants until the point at which he becomes a landlord—in other words, until he acquires a legal interest in the property. The instant that he becomes the landlord, he will be the landlord of an assured tenancy provided that the relevant conditions have been fulfilled under clause 36. There is a continuum. There is no time at which a shorthold can be inserted deliberately or by mistake.
      By virtue of amendment No. 34, once the tenant has become an assured tenant, it would be possible for him to be granted a shorthold tenancy afterwards. There is

      1069
      protection and I hope that the hon. Member for Hammersmith will believe that we have met the spirit of what he is trying to do.
      Mr. Soley: I must confess that this is one of the third categories of commitment from the Minister. He said that he would consider the matter and he has gone further and accepted our proposal. Amendment No. 229 raises questions about the secure tenancy. I understand what the Minister has said. I will think about his comments because this is obviously a more technical matter than I had thought initially. Obviously that precludes returning to this other than in another place. However, I understand what the Minister says.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No.26, in page 12, line 44, leave out from 'prescribed' to end of line 45.
      No. 34, in page 13, line 5, at end insert—
      `(2A) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) above, where—

      (a) immediately before a tenancy (in this subsection referred to as "the new tenancy") is granted, the person to whom it is granted or, as the case may be, at least one of the persons to whom it is granted was a tenant under an assured tenancy which was not a shorthold tenancy, and

      (b) the new tenancy is granted by the person who, immediately before the beginning of the tenancy, was the landlord under the assured tenancy referred to in paragraph (a) above.

      the new tenancy cannot be an assured shorthold tenancy.'—[Mr. Waldegravel.]

    Clause 20

      REFERENCE OF EXCESSIVE RENTS TO RENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
      Mr. Waldegrave: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 14, line 20, leave out 'similar tenancies' and insert 'assured tenancies (whether shorthold or not)'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 36 and 37.
      Mr. Waldegrave: These amendments relate to the basis on which the rent under a shorthold tenancy can be referred to the rent assessment committee and under which the committee can make a determination of rent under that tenancy if it considers it right. The procedure in clause 20 as drafted centres on a comparison between the rent payable under the shorthold tenancy in question and the rent payable under similar tenancies of similar dwelling houses elsewhere in the locality.
      The effect would be to require that the rent payable under the shorthold be considered by reference only to rent payable under other shorthold tenancies. That point was argued in the Housing (Scotland) Bill. We have thought more about the matter and have concluded that the procedure is unnecessarily restrictive. It would seem right that, in considering the rent under a shorthold tenancy, the rent assessment committee should have the freedom to look at the evidence of other shortholds and that of the generality of assured tenancies, whether shorthold or not.
      That will provide a wider frame of reference against which the shorthold rent can be assessed in particular, bearing in mind that one might expect shorthold rents to emerge at a somewhat lower level in many places than those for full assured tenancies. The new approach would
      1070
      enable the rent assessment committee to reduce the shorthold rent in a case where there was no evidence available in respect of other shortholds, but where it was clear that the rent in question was none the less significantly above the prevailing rent levels for assured tenancies. It would be odd if the rent assessment committee could not do that.
      The procedure as amended will of course still require that the comparison be confined to tenancies of similar properties in the locality, but the change will introduce a wider degree of flexibility into the arrangements for reviewing shorthold rents. That can only work to the advantage of the shorthold tenant who has committed himself to paying rent which is clearly unreasonable in market terms. I hope on that basis that the amendment will meet with the approval of the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Grist: I beg to move amendment No. 77, in page 14, line 27, leave out 'or section 13 above'.
      This is a simple drafting amendment designed to delete from clause 20(2)(a) the cross-reference to clause 13. That reference is now redundant as a result of new subsection 20(2)(b) which was inserted in Committee.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 36, in page 14, line 36, leave out 'of similar tenancies'.
      No. 37, in page 14, line 37, after 'locality', insert
      'let on assured tenancies (whether shorthold or not)'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]
      Mr. Grist: I beg to move amendment No. 78, in page 15, line 6, at end insert
      'and, accordingly, where subsection (4) of that section applies, any reference in subsection (4)(b) above to rent is a reference to rent exclusive of the amount attributable to rates'.
      This is a purely technical amendment. Clause 20(5) extends to determinations of rent under clause 20 the provisions in clause 13 regarding the treatment of rates. The amendment simply inserts into clause 20 the necessary consequential reference to rates similar to a reference already included in the corresponding provision in clause 13.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 3

      AGRICULTURAL WORKER CONDITIONS
      Mr. Waldegrave: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 84, line 34 after 'residing', insert 'in the dwelling-house'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 39 and 71.
      Mr. Waldegrave: Again, I hope that there will be no disagreement over this amendment. Schedule 3 describes the conditions that must be fulfilled for a tenancy or licence to qualify as an assured agricultural occupancy. I am not an expert on this because when the Committee discussed these matters I was engaged in the same kind of activity as that engaged in recently by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley).
      The agricultural worker condition may be fulfilled if the property concerned is occupied by the widow or widower of an assured agricultural occupancy on that person's death. Amendment No. 39 provides that a person living with the tenant as husband or wife shall be treated as a

      1071
      widow or widower in such a case. It brings the provision into line with changes that we are making elsewhere in the Bill by putting the unmarried partner on the same footing as the legal spouse.
      Amendment No. 38 is essentially a drafting amendment to make it clear that, where it is a qualifying family member who may meet the agricultural worker condition, that family member must have been living in the property.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 39, in page 84, line 45 at end insert—
      `(5) For the purposes of the preceding provisions of this paragraph a person who, immediately before the previous occupier's death, was living with the previous occupier as his or her wife or husband shall be treated as the widow or widower of the previous occupier.'
      No. 71, in page 84, line 50, at end insert `and'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

    Clause 25

      DAMAGES FOR UNLAWFUL EVICTION
      Mr. Waldegrave: I beg to move amendment No. 262, in page 16, line 36, leave out
      `or any person acting on his behalf'
      and insert
      `(in this section referred to as "the landlord in default") or any person acting on behalf of the landlord in default'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 263 to 267, 269, 271 and 273.
      Mr. Waldegrave: This important group of amendments deals with strengthened powers to deal with harassment and related matters.
      Clauses 25 and 26 provide a new civil right to compensation for a tenant who has been unlawfully evicted by his landlords or the landlord's agent. The compensation is based on the difference in the value of the landlord's interest in the building with and without the tenant. In Committee we undertook to widen those clauses to catch cases in which the eviction was carried out by a superior landlord or someone acting on his behalf. That could happen.
      The amendments discharge that undertaking. They will be of particular help in cases where the superior landlord is about to require the reversion of the tenancy and therefore might have a large financial interest in getting the tenant out. The amendments will ensure that in those circumstances the tenant can benefit from any increase in the value of the superior landlord's interest in the building as a result of the eviction.
      I hope that the House will forgive me if I say a few words about anti-harassment in general as an introduction to this group of amendments. We must ensure that landlords who harass their tenants do not profit from it. There has been widespread support for the measures in the Bill to strengthen the provisions, and for the new right to civil damages. The amendments will reinforce the provisions to which I have just referred. We intend to introduce amendments to widen the scope of clause 25 and to extend the basis on which damages are assessed under clause 26 to include development value and to widen the new criminal offence of harassment in clause 27. The hon.
      1072
      Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will probably welcome those amendments, although in some respects he may want us to go further.
      8.30 pm
      All the amendments strengthen the Bill and I am happy to acknowledge that in part they are due to the constructive criticisms that were made in Committee by both sides, many of them by Opposition Members. It is right that I should acknowledge that my officials have had a great deal of assistance from Shelter, the private tenants rights group, the Association of Tenancy Relations Officers and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. They have all made suggestions about how the Bill could be improved and, equally important, how it could be effectively enforced. Enforcement is important. We intend to mount a wide publicity campaign to tell tenants about the new provisions and about their rights generally. We must also discuss with local authorities how these matters can be carried forward.
      Some landlords are so negligent in carrying out repairs that their failure to repair could clearly be interpreted as an attempt to drive out the tenant by neglect. In Committee I said that we intended to introduce amendments in another place. They have to be introduced in another place for reasons that I think the hon. Member for Hammersmith understands. They will strengthen local authorities' powers to get repairs done.
      Some of the amendments will entail redefining the person who has control of the property in order to counter evasion. We intend also to amend the relevant sections of part XI of the Housing Act 1985 that deal with similar notices served on the owners of houses in multiple occupation in order to counter evasion of those notices by landlords. All the amendments will prove valuable in reinforcing the considerable powers that local authorities already possess.
      Local authorities have powers, but tenants also have wide powers. It is not the absence of rights that prevents tenants from enforcing rights concerning repairs; it is often the cost and the fear of going to court. That is why we all welcome the proposals in the report of the Lord Chancellor's review body on civil justice, published on 7 June, for housing action as a low cost, informal method of bringing cases such as repairs to court.
      Much of the disreputable activity with which these clauses are designed to deal takes place in houses that are in multiple occupation. Many of the poorest and most vulnerable members of society live in houses in multiple occupation, as our own research has shown. Local authorities have wide powers to deal with the poor conditions that are found in HMOs. They may repair them. They may set up a registration scheme to keep track of HMOs in their areas. They may impose management orders. They may also, where conditions are very bad, impose control orders. There is an environmental health adviser in the Department. He is touring the country and talking to local authorities to find out how these powers work in practice. It is clear that they could be improved in several respects.
      My Department will be consulting local authorities and other interested organisations on a series of proposals to which we hope to give effect in the next Housing Bill. I think that I should be legitimately criticised if I introduced at this late stage a series of amendments that related to HMOs.

      1073
      However, I wanted to address these points because a number of hon. Members, in particular the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), made a number of them in Committee and I did not want him to think that we had forgotten about them. We shall propose a revised definition of an HMO. We shall propose that the management regulations on HMOs that apply basic minimum standards should apply to all HMOs. We shall also make proposals for simplifying and improving the control order procedure. We shall consult local authorities on the means of making the registration scheme more effective.
      I have mentioned the control order procedure. Our guidance to local authorities will make it clear that the control order procedure and their compulsory purchase powers can be used in bad cases of harassment. Some local authorities have already successfully used those powers. I hope that the effect of the new provisions will be that there is a reduced need to consider such draconian steps in future. but the powers are there and we shall make sure that local authorities realise fully how many of them can be used.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Hammersmith will forgive me for straying outside the scope of the amendments under discussion. I am aware that not all the problems have been tackled by these amendments. That is why I wanted slightly to widen the debate and to let him know that in due course we shall be consulting local authorities on HMO improvements. I hope that they will meet some of the points that he and his hon. Friends raised in Committee.
      Mr. Soley: The Minister has conceded some of the points that we made in Committee, for which I am grateful. He has also said that he is willing to take action on houses in multiple occupation. They are an acute cause of concern. We shall await his proposals. However, we fear that the Government have underestimated the problems that a tenant faces in taking legal action. If he is faced with the threat of eviction, that alone is sufficient to make him drop any action that is designed to challenge the landlord. If he is in imminent danger of being evicted and he is successfully evicted and made homeless, the chances of him being able successfully to pursue a court case, however quick and easy that process may be, are minimal. We have to bear in mind the changes that are being made to legal aid. Not all these cases will be dealt with under the civil system that has been recommended by the Lord Chancellor. If one bears in mind the proposed changes to legal aid, some people will be in acute difficulties. All the evidence is that tenants have great difficulty in successfully pursuing actions against landlords. They are often better represented and they have far more money and stability with which to fight their case.
      It was pointed out in Committee that it is not sufficient to talk about powers for local authorities. We need to talk about their duties. If a tenant goes to a local authority and says, "I am being harassed," and the local authority says to him, "We are sorry, but we do not have a tenancy relations officer, but you can see the environmental health officer, if you like," the environmental health officer will say to the tenant, "There are only one or two of us; we look into health factors in shops and factories and we do not have time to pursue your case." That tenant will therefore be left without any outside support. It happens in case after case. That is why we should prefer the
      1074
      amendment that is to be introduced in the other place to impose on local authorities a duty rather than just give them a power.
      We shall want to look in detail at the amendment that is to be introduced in the other place. I hope that the Minister will take on board some of our anxieties. I hope that he will ensure that local authorities have both the power to act and the resources with which to deliver that action, thereby making it effective for a tenant to go to his local authority. By doing so, he will make life in his rented home very much more difficult than if he had done nothing.
      Mr. Squire: A great deal of attention was rightly devoted in Committee to the clauses that deal with tightening up of the action that can be taken against rogue landlords. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, there was concern about this problem on both sides of the Committee. What he has said today will therefore be welcomed both inside and outside the House. Any tightening up that makes it less likely that tenants will be harassed and driven from their rightful home has to be welcomed.
      I have been a member of the board of Shelter for six or seven years and I am grateful that my hon. Friend paid tribute to the help that Shelter has given to the Department. He is sufficiently realistic to know that the help that is being given is unlikely to remove all the reservations that Shelter has about the Bill, but I am having fruitful discussions with Shelter about its reservations. It is an important step, welcomed by Shelter and by many other organisations in housing.
      The Minister mentioned houses in multiple occupation. In many cases the position is so bad that we would again find common ground across the Chamber if the Government introduced legislation to tackle the very worst at the earliest opportunity as many people live in the most squalid conditions imaginable. I look forward to seeing the detailed proposals that the Government have undertaken to introduce.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 263, in page 16, line 40, leave out
      `or any person on his behalf'
      and insert
      '(in this section referred to as "the landlord in default") or any person acting on behalf of the landlord in default'.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move amendment No. 199, in page 16, line 44, leave out from the beginning to 'to' in line 3 on page 17 and insert—
      (b) commits any act, or omits to act, or pursues a course of conduct which act, omission or course of conduct is likely to cause the residential occupier of any premises either—

      (i) to give up his occupation of the premises or any part thereof, or

      (ii) to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the premises or any part thereof,

      and such act, omission or course of conduct is likely'
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendment No. 295, amendment No. 200, in page 17, line 34, leave out from 'that' to end of line 39 and insert
      `the act, omission or course of conduct was the only means by which in all the circumstances he could have secured the health safety and welfare of the residential occupier, or that of

      1075
      the residential occupier of adjacent premises whilst making the least possible infringement of any part of this section in respect of the residential occupier.'
      Government amendments Nos. 296 and 297 and amendment No. 201, in page 17, line 39, at end insert—
      '(7A) It should be a defence for such a person to show that the act, omission or course of conduct occurred wholly accidently.
      Mr. Banks: As the Minister said, we are dealing with the provisions of the Bill that cover harassment and the illegal eviction of private tenants. Notwithstanding the Minister's remarks and the support given by his hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), Labour Members do not believe that the Government amendments match the promises and good intentions stated in Committee. I do not deny that the Minister has many good intentions in that respect; as Tories go, he is quite a decent sort of fellow. That is probably why he is not going to last much longer at the Department of the Environment. I am sure that one of the main reasons for the excessively large gap between the end of the Committee stage and the beginning of the Report stage is that the Minister has been fighting the Secretary of State tooth and nail to try to give some semblance of reality to the promises that he made in Committee. He has undoubtedly won some minor victories. However, whereas the Minister says that the amendments afford private tenants protection against harassment and illegal eviction, we are absolutely convinced that they do not go far enough to realise the assurances that the Minister gave.
      The Government are making much of their stated commitment to make war on bad landlords. I congratulate the Minister on his excellent manipulation of the press in his campaign recently. It would seem that his ability to get good publicity rivals only my own. I read in yesterday's edition of The Guardian, under the heading "Tenants Rights Strengthened", that the Minister was to give tenants new rights. Members of the press would do well to examine the wording of the legislation, which constitutes the enactment of the Government's promises. Of course, I understand that the average journalist was not at the front of the queue when brains were being handed out but if journalists read the Bill and the Government's amendments carefully they will realise that the Government's promises simply do not ring true. I believe that it will be just as hard to prove harassment and illegal eviction and gain compensation for the victims of those evils after the Bill becomes law as it was before.
      8.45 pm
      In addition, we should bear in mind the Bill's main thrust. It will decontrol the private rented market so that on new lettings landlords will be able to give short-term security under the new regime. They will be able to make shorthold lettings and charge market rents. When a landlord owns two houses side by side, one with a protected tenancy with a fair rent of, say, £40 a week and one with a new shorthold letting at, say £90 a week, there will be a temptation, although I put it no higher than that, to encourage the protected tenant to leave. Some landlords step well over that boundary of temptation and adopt courses of action deliberately designed to get the protected tenants out so that they can charge higher rents.
      1076
      Hon. Members should bear in mind that that is exactly what happened in 1957 when the Government decontrolled the market in the Rent Act of that year. Many hon. Members have spoken of accounts of the promises and assurances given when that Bill was approaching the statute book. The 1957 Act did not cause a flood of new private rented accommodation to become available. As we know to our cost, and the Government now admit to their shame, it caused a massive increase in harassment epitomised by that evil person, Rachman.
      When I spoke to the Opposition's amendments in Committee I began by quoting ministerial statements that showed, as I thought at the time, an honest intention on Ministers' part to tackle the problems of harassment and illegal eviction. On 12 January the Minister said:
      "Bad landlords are in a minority but they form a significant group that must be dealt with."
      He went on to say:
      "We are agreed on the objective of trying to make life harder for bad landlords".—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 12 January 1988; c. 73–76.]
      It would appear that we were in agreement in words only because the undertakings given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State that she would examine the concerns expressed in our amendments in Committee do not appear to have given rise to any Government amendment that really answers those concerns. I am not surprised that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has been packed off to Finland. I do not know what she is doing there; perhaps she is studying igloo construction in case there is another winter of discontent. Frankly, our proceedings do not really suffer from the absence of Madam Woodentop. She gave assurances in her hurried attempts to move quickly on to the next brief, to which she stuck rigidly. But perhaps it is rather inelegant to think of the Under-Secretary sticking rigidly to her briefs. She could not understand what was going on. She made promises, hoping that we would then take the heat off and in many cases, in our naivety and gullibility, we believed her, just as we believed the Minister for Housing and Planning. What a lot of trouble that has got us into
      Clauses 25 and 26 relate to a new civil claim for damages that arises if certain things happen: it must be a landlord or his agent who acts; the landlord or agent must commit a positive act; that act must interfere with the peace and comfort of the residential occupier; the tenant has to prove that that act was committed with the intention of getting him or her to leave; and finally, as a result of that act, the tenant must actually have left. When all those conditions are proven, a claim for damages arises. As the Minister said, that claim amounts to the difference between the value of the house with tenants and its value with vacant possession. The idea behind that, which Opposition Members fully support, is to confiscate from the landlord the profit from his crime.
      We must examine, however, where private tenants' difficulties really lie. I am anxious that the two clauses that create the new claim for damages were frequently used by the Under-Secretary of State as a justification for not tightening the criminal law which we shall be considering under new clause 27. In implying that it would be easy for the tenant to obtain massive amounts of compensation by walking out of his or her accommodation and complaining of some trivial matter, she showed no understanding of harassment and illegal eviction. That is not really surprising, as she comes from Broxbourne. If she came to

      1077
      the London borough of Newham she would see what harassment and illegal eviction mean to people in areas such as the east end of London. As I said, the hon. Lady showed little understanding of the Bill. She certainly showed no understanding of proceedings in court or of the insurmountable difficulties that many tenants face in trying to get any justice whatever from the courts.
      The amendments draw attention to the holes in the clause as drafted. One of the problems that we have identified is addressed in amendment No. 199. In the clause as drafted, the landlord must commit a positive act that interferes with the peace and comfort of the tenant and forces him or her to leave the accommodation. I have come across many examples of harassment in my constituency in which no positive act has been involved but the landlord has nevertheless managed to make life extremely uncomfortable for the tenant. I quoted many examples in Committee drawn from my experience in the London borough of Newham. I intend to give a couple more this evening. I shall give only the first initial of the surname but the cases have all come from our housing officers.
      Mrs. O is three months pregnant and lives with her husband and child in two rooms in a house in multiple occupation. There is plenty of evidence that the landlord intends her to leave. He has sent letters telling her to leave. He talks loudly in the hallway to other members of his family saying things such as, "I am not having these people in my house. I will get them out one way or another." There are no positive acts that can be linked to that intention. For example, he insists on the rent being paid in cash and will not give her a rent book. The law as it currently stands obliges landlords to supply rent books only to weekly tenants. That is absurd, as I am sure the Minister would agree. That landlord has ripped off the wallpaper in the hallway, has refused to repair the toilet, which does not flush, has refused to pay the gas bill and, as a result, the gas has been disconnected. Indeed, the gas bill was so high that the local authority refused to use its powers under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 to restore the supply. The electricity bill was not paid but, in that instance, the local authority did step in to ensure that the supply continued. Only last week the tenant received a letter from the Thames water authority threatening to distrain for non-payment of the water rates.
      All those elements of the harassment of Mrs. O are omissions rather than acts. As we know, courts are interpreters of the literal word of the law in question. They pay no regard to well-intended verbiage from Ministers in Parliament. We know that judges are not permitted to look at Hansard in order to see what was in the minds of Ministers. They would be hard put to find that out as regards the Under-Secretary of State. However, they cannot find out the intentions behind legislation. All they can do is interpret the words of the legislation as it is presented to them.
      The first aim of our amendment is to ensure that omissions as well as commissions fall within the remit of the definition of illegal eviction.
      Another case in my constituency which did not result in prosecution by the local authority involved a tenant who went into hospital during complications in her pregnancy. While she was away the landlord removed the toilet. When she was to be discharged, the landlord refused to restore the amenities. An omission is not an offence in the criminal
      1078
      law as it stands and, subsequently, no action was taken. The hospital could not allow her to go back into her former accommodation because of the state of it. Therefore, after contacting the local authority the council picked up the client as homeless. The much-maligned local authorities, with all the responsibilities they continually receive from Government, also suffer criticisms and attacks from the Government and journalists.
      In the end, it is the local authority that has to pick up the mess created by the social and economic policies of the Government. For example, I noticed that someone was evicted from a property owned by the Prince of Wales. The spokesperson for the Prince of Wales—I am sure that the Prince would not have agreed—said, "It is not our responsibility. Those people were in the accommodation illegally and were squatting." That is now a matter for the local authority and they will be housed as homeless. That is the attitude that even so-called responsible landlords take. One can well imagine the attitude that will be taken by the landlords who will be encouraged by this Bill if it becomes law.
      Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the possibility of harassment along the lines of the cases he has illustrated will become more acute? There are regulated tenants who, quite rightly, have the protection of the law under the Bill. However, once those tenants leave, the property will become deregulated and, as I said earlier, there is every opportunity and every incentive for would-be Rachmans to get the regulated tenants out. Once the accommodation is empty, it can be let at market rents or more or sold off with vacant possession.
      Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend knows the Bill well and is an expert on housing. He is absolutely correct. I hope that he will spend some time pointing that out to journalists on The Guardian, who seem to be blinded by the Minister's charisma and ability to dress-up the unacceptable in a way that makes them believe that he has gained great victories for the protection of private tenants when he has done nothing of the sort.
      I do not wish to confuse hon. Members by referring to the criminal law and civil law together as if the burden of proof in each case was the same. However, the definition of harassment in both has proved to have common problems when it comes to proving cases in court
      Another change proposed by our amendment is that it would include a course of conduct in the list of things that the court may consider, when taken together, to amount to harassment. A case in point occurred in Camden. I have quoted the case before. It involved daily actions of a landlord which wore down the nerves of a middle-aged lady tenant. There were instances where he peered through her windows, stored bicycles in her hallway, complained that she was opening the windows when they should be shut and that they were shut when they should be open. Not one of those incidents would amount to harassment within the definition in clause 25. However, put together they made that tenant's life hell. That is the sort of thing that landlords will get up to. If the Minister is serious about trying to do something about harassment and preventing illegal eviction, he should address his mind to such things. Such things are covered in our amendment.
      The second improvement that our amendment brings to clause 25 is that, instead of requiring the tenant to prove that the landlord intended that the tenant should leave, it

      1079
      will be sufficient for the tenant to show that the acts or omissions that constitute harassment were likely to cause a residential occupier to leave.
      I should mention Government amendment No. 295 which was tabled yesterday. Think about it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We came out of Committee on 15 March and amendments were being tabled yesterday. What was the reason for the delay if it was not to try to blind us with the sheer weight of the amendments and hope that we would allow these things to go through unchallenged?
      Mr. Boateng: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Banks: I know what my hon. Friend is going to say but I do not think I will be able to agree with him.
      Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend attributes malice to the Minister. He might do just as well to attribute incompetence to him and those who serve him.
      Mr. Banks: I knew that I would disagree with my hon. Friend. I do not think that the Minister is incompetent. He has many incompetent people around him and his boss, the Secretary of State, is a paragon of incompetence. I believe that there is malice in this. Before you were fortunate enough to come into the Chamber, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we had a great deal of discussion about the fact that this Report stage is not a Report stage in the way that we constitutionally understood a Report stage to be. It is a re-run of the Committee stage. We are considering many matters that were not raised in Committee. I do not want to open up that old wound again. I have no doubt we shall return to it later.
      Government amendment No. 295, which was tabled so late yesterday, goes some way down the road that we should like to take. I assume that that is why the Minister was locked in some arm-wrestling with the Secretary of State to table it. We know that the Secretary of State considers the Minister to be an unspeakable wet and a weakling who should be moved over as fast as possible. On that score, the Minister has our complete support. We shall stand shoulder to shoulder with him to resist the Secretary of State.
      Government amendment No. 295 removes from clause 25 the most difficult test of requiring the tenant to prove that the landlord intended him to leave. It still requires the tenant to show the landlord's state of mind and that the landlord knew or had reasonable cause to believe that his conduct would cause the tenant to leave. I am pleased that the Government have taken this road, and I hope that they will be able to accept the rest of our argument about the amendment.
      I want amendment No. 200 to be regarded as drawing attention to the looseness of the drafting of clause 25. The Government have promised much action against bad landlords and have been getting an unfairly favourable press about it. When the Government's promises are analysed in the text of the Bill, they do not amount to much.
      9 pm
      Clause 25(7) allows the landlord to raise the defence that he had reasonable cause to believe that the tenant had ceased to reside in the premises. Suppose the landlord waits until the tenant goes on holiday and writes a letter saying: "I think that you have left. If you do not respond
      1080
      within seven days, I shall assume that you have abandoned the premises." He might ask the neighbours "Have you seen Mr. and Mrs. Y?" Does he have reasonable cause to believe that they have left? I hope that the Minister will answer that question, because we need to be able to test the strength of the Government's intentions.
      If the landlord has reasonable cause to believe that the tenant has left, he can change the locks, store the tenant's belongings and gain possession. This does not seem to be adequate law. We are asking for the defence that the landlord can raise to be restricted, first, to occasions when he can say that his actions were for the health, safety or welfare of the occupants or neighbours, or, secondly, to occasions when he can say that his actions were wholly accidental, as we propose in amendment No. 201.
      In Committee, the Under-Secretary expressed concern that the landlord might need to disconnect services to carry out building works. The Under-Secretary had simple faith in the good intentions of all landlords. She thought that when a landlord broke down the door and regained possession he would do so merely as the act of a kind and charitable person to redecorate the house while the tenant was on holiday. I hope that our amendment will address this problem. It clearly states that where works are necessary to safeguard
      "the health, safety and welfare" of the occupiers or neighbours, that will be an absolute defence to a claim for compensation.
      Government amendments Nos. 296 and 297 also apply to this part of the Bill.
      Harassment and illegal evictions are evils that strike at the heart of a tenant's well-being, comfort, health and security. A person cannot possibly concentrate on work, study, family or leisure if he is constantly in fear of losing his home because of unscrupulous speculation by his landlord. There are many bad landlords. We give examples of only one or two of them, such as Rachman. Rachmanism is alive and well and living in the east end and other parts of London. Indeed, he will thrive and prosper because of the Bill,
      If the Minister and the Government are sincere in their wish to control unscrupulous landlords, they should recognise the failings of their proposals to deal with them and honour the commitments that the Minister gave time after time in Committee to strengthen the powers of the law to control the activities of such undesirable people. The Bill will give free rein to bad landlords
      Mr. Simon Hughes; The case for strong law against bad landlords is overwhelming. It is more overwhelming when the rewards to be gained by them are greater. That is the reality of part 1 of the Bill. It will allow landlords to let at enormous rents and to obtain complete possession for development without the courts having discretion. Unless we have completely sound regulations, they will be able to continue to get away with harassment.
      The debate is about one issue—where one draws the line in relation to harassment. Amendment No. 199 effectively makes the test objective. It suggests that we insert into clause 25 words that will enable the court to judge whether the act, omission or course of conduct of the landlord is likely to cause somebody to depart.
      By contrast, Government amendment No. 95, which I accept is a slight improvement, leaves the test in the mind and therefore subjective in terms of the landlord. The

      1081
      court would still have to find that the landlord knew or had reasonable cause to believe that his conduct was likely to be effective harassment of the tenant.
      Absentee landlords or those employing agents or a series of people to "look after" their property could still get away with the sort of activity that I hope the whole House would condemn. That will happen if we do not have a much harder objective test. Although I accept and welcome the concession, a harsher and more objective test is still compatible with what the Minister would wish to see.
      Some people leave premises not because of one horrendous event. They do not leave because the landlord came in and issued a single overwhelming threat; nor do they leave because of an incident in the middle of the night. Many of them leave as a result of the cumulative effect of the unacceptable behaviour of the landlord or his agents. Our key task is to make sure we give the courts power to say that any interference with what the common law of England calls the quiet enjoyment of tenants is unacceptable and should allow action and criminal proceeding to be taken against the landlord.
      Mr. Boateng: One of the great evils of the legislation that we are considering and which we mulled over for many hours in Committee is not only that it fails to address the difficulties and problems in establishing sufficient grounds to secure conviction in the case of alleged harassment, but that it creates an atmosphere and an environment in which there is every incentive in terms of profit for the bad landlord to flourish. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) showed that quite clearly in his speech. It is in that context that we must look at the amendment and the evil and the mischief that it seeks to address.
      When we do that we talk often about Rachman and hark back to a period in the 1950s and 1960s when that landlord was at the height of his infamy. In doing that we overlook the fact that many modern Rachmans are out and about and doing their work in London—even without the provisions in the Bill. That gives us cause for concern about what they are likely to do if the Bill becomes law. If we are unable effectively to control them at present, how can we control them when they are unleashed with the expectation of the profit that the Bill holds out to them?
      No doubt the Minister of State has brought forward his safeguards in all good faith, but they will have very little effect. The constraints that exist in the Bill as it stands will not be sufficient to restrain bad landlords. While not going into areas that have already been examined by a jury, it is right that we should name and expose those who are in the business of exploiting and oppressing their tenants—the modern successors to Rachman.
      It is right that I should name in this place the landlord who is by far the worst. He is a man called Hoogstraten, who has terrorised a whole section of our community in London by his actions. In relation to the particular incident that I shall relate to the House, I am indebted to the London Housing Forum for its excellent publication "Speaking Out", which gives a voice to the people of London in exposing men such as Hoogstraten. Ms. H, whose case I shall refer to, is entitled to be heard. We must learn lessons from her experience:
      "Ms. H moved to her flat in Edgware Road, Westminster, as a short-term leaseholder only to discover that her head leaseholder was the notorious Hoogstraten.
      1082
      The dispute between them began when the head leaseholder claimed rights over the garden area which has exclusively been used by the occupiers of Ms. H's present flat for the last 20 years, and is included on the land registry map of her flat".
      Mr. Hoogstraten has a henchman named Bradshaw, who
      "acquired the flat below Ms. H by harassing an elderly man out of the property, who still continued to pay rent, even until his death, though he was not living there. Harassment to persuade Ms. H to give up her rights to the garden then began."
      All they wanted was her garden. They had to harass this woman of 20 years' occupancy to get it. Ms. H says this about Mr. Hoogstraten:
      "Hoogstraten pushed me and spat in my face, he then pushed me towards my garden door. He accused me of being a prostitute, a cow and a slut. Mr. Bradshaw then said, am moving down there' and pointed to flat A. He also said, `when I move in your life won't be worth living'. I was in a state of shock."
      Since that initial meeting between Ms. H, Bradshaw and Hoogstraten,
      "other threats and incidents occurred. These have included threats of her 'ending up in a wheelchair', being nailed into her flat with 8" nails, with threats of `cementing her in' to follow. `Bradshaw was constantly banging on my window and doors and threatening me'. One time Bradshaw started piling furniture up outside her backdoor. Ms. H and a friend tried photographing these events by climbing up on to the roof. Bradshaw spotted them and hurled a massive slab of concrete at them. They turned and ducked but it hurt Mr. W's hand, who was consequently badly injured."
      Ms. H further said:
      "Ever since I met Mr. Hoogstraten and Mr. Bradshaw, I have been in constant fear of their action. I believe their conduct is designed to make me surrender my right to use the rear garden and even to induce me to leave my flat and live elsewhere. As a result of the actions of these two men I have stayed away from my home, lodging with friends, initially for about 6 weeks, and then returning to the flat for a short time only. In addition since the incidents began my health has suffered and most recently has been worsened because of the stress and fear I have to endure."
      I do not believe for one moment that Ms. H is alone in her complaints against Hoogstraten. There will also be complaints against all the mini-Hoogstratens in our metropolis.
      Finally, someone from Westminster council went to examine her flat. When he met Bradshaw, what did Bradshaw do? Men such as Bradshaw and Hoogstraten are so arrogant in their activities in our city that Bradshaw spat in the face of the representative of Westminster city council.
      Following this particular incident, two years after all this began, Westminster council at last took action. However, it failed properly to draft the charge. As a result of that, it dropped the case. Ms. H says:
      "I was completely devastated because if we'd got a conviction you feel like you've got protection, but this is like saying that nothing has happened, so carry on harassing".
      That was Ms. H's experience as she told it to the inquiry of the London Housing Forum. It highlights the Hoogstratens and Bradshaws of this world. Something should be done about such people. They should be named in our newspapers. All sorts of things appear in our newspapers, but not often enough the names of the Hoogstratens and Bradshaws. They should be exposed.
      9.15 pm
      That evidence not only reveals the activities of those people but says something about the need to ensure that local authorities are in a proper position to respond to

      1083
      such evils and that they get their act together, not only in terms of efficiency, but in terms of the way in which such matters are prosecuted and the zeal with which they are prosecuted, and to ensure that they have the resources to do that.
      The reality is that, whatever we pass tonight and even if the Bill is amended at this late stage by the Minister of State accepting our amendment as we urge him to do in London and throughout the country, legal departments, tenancy relations departments and the sections of housing departments that deal specifically with the private sector are being cut, cut and cut again. Unless that is stopped, there is no hope of even putting people in the appalling bed-and-breakfast accommodation in which council's are obliged to place them.
      The Minister of State has had cause to say good things about my borough and about the way in which it tries to deal with the problem of homelessness. However, in my borough, the section of the council that deals with private sector housing is facing a cut of more than 60 per cent. in its budget and in the resources that are available to the council for dealing with the problems of private tenants. That is the result of the Government's policies relating to local authorities and their resources. The least that the Government can do on behalf of the people who suffer harassment in the private sector is accept our amendment. We would then not only have rhetoric against the Hoogstratens and the Bradshaws of this world; we would have action also.
      Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) have provided an incontrovertible case for accepting what is, after all, only a modest change to the provisions whereby acts of omission can be included in the court proceedings.
      I want to put to the Minister and the House what I believe to be the bare bones of the situation. They must be spelt out because hon. Members and anybody who has listened to the debate must have been gripped by the examples that have been given by my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West and for Brent, South of the relatively small incentives that exist for landlords to get people out of their accommodation.
      Clearly, the purpose behind the Bill is greatly to enlarge the differentials between different types of tenure and, therefore, automatically greatly to increase the incentives to people who may be able to change the tenure of one piece of accommodation with a sitting tenant. Those will be the results if the Bill is enacted. That is the logic of the Bill, which, as we demonstrated in Committee, does not provide or encourage the building of any further accommodation. Therefore, the differentials will increase and the premium on a "void", as I believe it is technically known in the housing world, will be that much greater. If I can use a well-known word to the Government, the return or reward for "enterprise" will be vastly enhanced.
      I started to be involved in politics at a constituency level before the Milner Holland report and before the operations of Mr. Rachman and his cohorts were halted. I hope that the Minister will tell us how far the recommendations of that report will be covered by the Bill. The matter may have been discussed in Committee, but unless the findings of the Milner Holland committee are
      1084
      properly covered, and I very much doubt that they were, what is to prevent a return of the terrible things that happened in the late 1950s which were uncovered by that report?
      I remind the Government that much of the Rachman operation happened in north Kensington, a place where political questions will be raised and choices made very shortly. It will be a good thing for some people to look at the Milner Holland report and see what was going on then. Will the Minister say whether the new law will cover the recommendations of that report?
      I was involved in trying to help people who were being harassed. My hon. Friends have mentioned one or two examples. All sorts of relatively small things can happen. If I were a landlord, I might well be able to tell the tenant that I wanted to inspect the property or come in to see whether I was going to put in some new cupboards. I might go along at 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock at night or send along someone to whom I had given a letter of authority.
      There are terrible problems with multi-occupancy. Multi-occupancy may not be quite as common as it once was, but many council houses still in municipal ownership which were bought up quite properly to house the homeless are multi-occupied and if they revert to private ownership, multi-occupancy and the evils that go with it in respect of harassment will return. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South said, when there is multi-occupancy and an interest, all sorts of curious things can happen. Faults can occur in electricity supplies and gas taps and appliances are mysteriously switched on. Dustbins are sometimes overturned.
      Some of us could just about cope with that, but the problem is that such landlords go for elderly people, and often elderly women living alone. They were the victims and I fear that they may be again. Cisterns mysteriously and constantly overflow, not always outside down the pipe; water comes down in awkward places at awkward times. I am giving a list of only some of the more obvious things. I do not want to take various ideas too far, but such actions were rife years ago and they still happen in certain places. Those are milder forms of harassment.
      Mr. McCartney: In my constituency there is a Rachman landlord called Mr. Morrissey who owns houses in Platt Bridge and Abram. He recently had the electricity cut off to a multi-occupancy housing arrangement. When the residents approached me and the local authority for assistance, and the electricity board was called in to investigate, it was discovered that that Rachman landlord had attached the electricity to the outside street lamp and had been fiddling the electricity board, despite the fact that some tenants had been paying money into a meter in some rooms and other tenants had been paying him cash each week. The local authority stepped in in an emergency. Families and elderly people were without heating and lighting and without any basics because of the Rachmanlike activity of such a landlord. Unless the Government give the amendments active consideration, I suspect that that will continue and increase.
      Mr. Spearing: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right.
      My second point is that in east London where the City style of living is moving eastwards, the differential between born and bred Londoners in traditional communities and people who are able to afford higher rents is becoming increasingly acute.

      1085
      The London Docklands development corporation is producing luxury developments on the opposite side of the road to large council estates. Many people, particularly those in Newham, will not necessarily take up such opportunities, if they get them. The original landlords may be all right, but we do not know to whom they will sell. A filtering mechanism is written into the Bill, but only for the initial landlord. As far as I know, there is nothing for years to come about changes in the ownership of premises which are initially sold to approved persons. The constraints that the Minister thinks he has in the Bill may operate for owner No. 1, but as the property market zooms on, as it might well do, what is to prevent owners Nos. 3 and 4 from being of a different character? No legislation produced by this House or the other place could prevent a decline in standards in that respect.
      Where there is a change of living style, the incentive for people to adopt even relatively mild practices grows greater. Accidents happen to cars, dogs appear in the street, people return to find windows broken and even the safety of children is in question. That is the sort of rag-bag private enterprise that we do not wish to see and I am sure that the Minister does not wish to see it either.
      In view of the framing of the Bill and the way economics work, the Minister must include much stronger protection in the law, and I do not believe that he is doing so. Therefore, he should accept the Opposition amendment. Unless he does, the protections that he has in mind will not only not do the job now, but will not even move in that direction.
      I have been having meetings with constituents about the Bill and at one somebody said, "What will the Government have us do? Camp out in Epping Forest?" Unless we are to have that, we must have the protections because we want to keep our traditional community in east London. Unless those protections are included in the Bill, there will be big trouble indeed.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I was not a member of the Committee but I should like to say a few words about harassment and the problems facing private tenants.
      My constituency has enormous housing stress, high unemployment and, paradoxically, an incredibly rapid increase in land and house prices. We are facing the sort of problem that we thought had gone away in the mid-1970s when protection from eviction, rent controls and protection of private tenants were introduced. Now we have such rapidly increasing house prices that landlords, who previously were relatively happy to let out part or all of their house as bed-sits, realise that they can make an absolute killing by evicting tenants or encouraging them to leave, and selling the property for redevelopment into so-called luxury flats, often of inferior workmanship.
      Whatever the Minister may say about the codes of practice, recommendations and advice that he would give to landlords, he is deliberately encouraging a market economy and a property boom in London and the south-east. The victims are private tenants who are forced out of places where they have often lived for many years. If, instead of going straight home in his ministerial car tonight, the Minister stopped by Charing Cross station or crossed the bridge to Waterloo station and asked some of the poor people sleeping in cardboard boxes tonight, which is not a cold night, why they became homeless, he would find that many had had private tenancies which they
      1086
      lost. Because they were single people they were not eligible for rehousing by the appropriate local authority under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. They then went to bed and breakfast accommodation or tried to get lodgings of other sorts, and could not afford it. The property boom caught up with them and they were forced out of yet another place. Eventually they ended up homeless, sleeping on the streets, an absolute disgrace to this country and to the Government who put them on to the streets in the first place.
      I hope that the Minister will recognise that, unless the tightest and strongest form of protection is given to all private tenants, as long as this property boom lasts they are the people who are vulnerable. It is not the articulate, able people who are able to use the law and get advice who suffer most. As my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) have pointed out, it is often the old, the single and the vulnerable who are eased out by landlords, possibly in breach of existing law and of this law, because local authorities lack the resources to give them the back-up necessary and advice bureaux and law centres are under pressure for lack of funding. These are the people who are the victims of a horrible mixture of public spending cuts that take away the carefully constructed support mechanisms of the past 20 years and encourage a property boom in which such people are discarded, considered worthless and left to sleep on the streets.
      The country deserves better of the House than to have those protections taken away. The House owes the people absolute and total protection from the ruthless Rachmans who are at this very moment licking their fingers with glee because they know that once this Bill has gone through, once the Finance Bill has gone through and once the business expansion scheme gravy train has got going they will make a fortune out of the misery of people living in private rented accommodation and soon to become unprotected, many of whom will end up living on the streets. Is that the kind of city and the kind of Government of which the Minister ought to be proud to be a member?
      I hope that the House will support the Opposition's amendment and understand that we are serious about protecting the most vulnerable in our society, who at the moment are private sector tenants.
      Mr. Waldegrave: No one doubts the sincerity or passion of many Opposition Members in drawing attention to the abuses which exist. It was—perhaps unusually for me—the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) who seemed to put his finger on the problem and in some sense to knock down one of the arguments put forward by some of his hon. Friends, including tile hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), because these abuses are happening now. They are a product of the fact that for those renting accommodation there is no way of getting a return except by selling with vacant possession. That means that the minority of ruthless and wicked landlords follow that route, because they, like other landlords who do not follow that route, value vacant possession above all.
      I am not arguing that the change in this Bill in itself makes this position either better or worse. It is the gap between the value of the property if the potentially statutorily protected tenant is not there and a free market that causes either loss if the landlord behaves well, or abuse if the landlord behaves badly. I will not disagree

      1087
      about that, but it is not logical to argue that by making it profitable for there to be private rented accommodation at market rents one is making matters worse. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Walsall, North and in the constituency of Newham——
      Mr. Winnick rose——
      Mr. Waldegrave: I think that the hon. Member had quite a good go—or any other area where house prices are moving up quickly these pressures are brought to bear. The only way to deal with them is to try to provide for the people in those areas who need housing within the housing association or council sector at rents that can be afforded. But that need is not met, as his party has shown since Milner Holland, by rent control, because this has produced these problems.
      I am not going to be so rash as to refer off the top of my head to all the recommendations of Milner Holland. However, insofar as those recommendations were carried into force in the Labour Government's 1965 Act, we are going further in a number of respects, and that will be welcomed.
      Mr. Winnick: It is perfectly true, as the Minister said, that abuses already occur. My hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) gave that as one reason for homelessness. However, does the Minister not recognise that he will make the situation worse, and that the incentive for abuse will be even greater? If a property can be re-let at market rent once a regulated tenant leaves, there will be a tremendous incentive for would-be Rachmans.
      Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member for Walsall, North has missed the point. As his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said, that incentive already exists. If anything, that incentive will be diminished because there will be the possibility of obtaining a tenancy at a market rent. Putting aside the impressive speech of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), it is important to consider whether the proposed amendments will actually introduce the kind of safeguards that Opposition Members want, make the law work better, and ensure the successful conviction of people who are difficult to convict at present.
      In an area where the abuses are so horrible, it is difficult to look coolly at the law and I understand the passion felt by Opposition Members in that respect. However, it is an old saying that hard cases make bad law and so we must coolly consider whether we are making changes which will work. There is a strong case for saying that we have done so.
      The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) laid about him and said that a whole range of people, from The Guardian to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, did not understand anything about this subject. That is unfair, and it may be that they understand our proposals more clearly than the hon. Gentleman. The difference between the proposals of Opposition Members and our own is not quite so great as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West believes.
      The starting point for all of this is the definitions in the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, which refer to
      1088
      "acts calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort"
      and so on, which are the words we have adopted for the Bill. The withdrawal of services, which is a technique to which one hon. Member referred, is specifically mentioned in all three provisions. It is clear to my advisers that courses of actions are included within the meaning of the word "acts" in this context, and could make the person guilty of harassment open to prosecution—there is no question about that.
      Clauses 25 and 27 of the Bill use the words
      "acts calculated to interfere with",
      which clearly includes a course of conduct; the legal advice on that point is perfectly clear.
      Turning to amendment No. 199, is it right that a landlord could be liable to damages—which, rightly, could be very large if he were properly convicted—if he did not intend to evict the tenant, did not know that his tenant would leave, and had no reasonable cause to believe that such would happen? Imagine the absurdity of a case where the prosecution could succeed, which would produce injustice the other way. We are no less keen to ensure convictions, but if we produce a law so draconian that it falls into disrepute and must be amended the other way, we shall not have done anything very sensible.
      We began by committing ourselves to the scope of clause 25 and the capacity to secure convictions. The concept of intent was put to us but—and we sympathised with this—intent was too difficult to prove. Our amendments in clause 27 to the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 widen the scope to cover acts which the landlord knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, might cause a tenant to leave his home. Those could be just the courses of action and types of conduct to which Opposition Members have referred. That is why, by amendment 295, we are widening the scope of clause 25. I had hoped that Opposition Members would support that amendment because I am advised that it would help considerably to make convictions achievable.
      Amendment No. 297 provides an additional defence for a landlord who can be sued for damages under the clause. Although it is unpopular to say so, occasionally the tenant harasses the landlord. Unlike the cases quoted tonight, I have had one or two in my constituency the other way round. We must not inadvertently cause injustice the other way. A landlord may withdraw services for reasons which are outside his control or which are not his fault. We should allow him to have a defence which the clause, as it stands, does not provide.
      The changes which we have made will be shown to be important when cases are brought. Under the existing rents legislation we have had the very conditions which have caused some of the appalling cases that Opposition Members have rightly described. Some of the names that have been mentioned are famous. It has been depressing that we have not had enough convictions in the courts to drive those people out of business.
      All the advice I have received strengthens my belief that the additional changes we are making will be beneficial. Let us not forget that in the first place we put a huge new power in the Bill—the right for a person to get damages if he can show that he has been evicted. That is an addition to the armoury. The changes will enable major steps to be taken to rid the country of some of the practices about which Opposition Members have rightly complained. I commend the Government amendments to the House.
      Mr. Tony Banks: On behalf of the Opposition, I accept the good intentions of the Minister. We did that throughout the Committee stage, but I am afraid that good intentions are not enough. The Minister perhaps does not understand. Perhaps the sort of things that are going on are beyond his experience. The actions committed by landlords that are not caught by the Bill amount to harassment by another name. Far from being the odd dramatic example, the cases that we have quoted are symptomatic of conduct in many parts of the country, particularly in the decaying inner cities and in places where houses are in multiple occupation.
      The Minister must understand that we are not trying to take an entrenched position. We are not saying that all landlords must by definition be in the wrong. The Minister knows that we are not comparing equal parties. The average landlord is in an immensely more powerful position than the average tenant. Therefore, the ability of the landlord to harass is inevitably far greater than that of the tenant to make trouble for the landlord. No doubt we could all point to one or two isolated examples of the latter, but we will come to them later.
      Once again, good intentions do not necessarily make good legislation unless they are turned into cast-iron guarantees and assurances within the Bill. On this part of the Bill the assurances have not turned into guarantees. Therefore, we will press the amendment to a Division.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 211.

      Division No. 347]

      [9.43 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Darling, Alistair

      Allen, Graham

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Anderson, Donald

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Dewar, Donald

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Dixon, Don

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Doran, Frank

      Barron, Kevin

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Battle, John

      Eastham, Ken

      Beckett, Margaret

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Fearn, Ronald

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Blair, Tony

      Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

      Boateng, Paul

      Fisher, Mark

      Boyes, Roland

      Flynn, Paul

      Bradley, Keith

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Foster, Derek

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Foulkes, George

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Buchan, Norman

      Galloway, George

      Buckley, George J.

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Callaghan, Jim

      George, Bruce

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Graham, Thomas

      Canavan, Dennis

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clay, Bob

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Cohen, Harry

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Henderson, Doug

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Crowther, Stan

      Holland, Stuart

      Cryer, Bob

      Home Robertson, John

      Cummings, John

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      1090

      Howells, Geraint

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Patchett, Terry

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Prescott, John

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Illsley, Eric

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Ingram, Adam

      Radice, Giles

      Janner, Greville

      Randall, Stuart

      John, Brynmor

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

      Reid, Dr John

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Richardson, Jo

      Kennedy, Charles

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Robertson, George

      Leighton, Ron

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Rogers, Allan

      Lewis, Terry

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Loyden, Eddie

      Ruddock, Joan

      McAllion, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sheerman, Barry

      McCartney, Ian

      Short, Clare

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Skinner, Dennis

      McKelvey, William

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      McLeish, Henry

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Snape, Peter

      McTaggart, Bob

      Soley, Clive

      Madden, Max

      Spearing, Nigel

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Marek, Dr John

      Stott, Roger

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Strang, Gavin

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Straw, Jack

      Martlew, Eric

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Maxton, John

      Turner, Dennis

      Meale, Alan

      Wall, Pat

      Michael, Alun

      Wallace, James

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Winnick, David

      Morley, Elliott

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Worthington, Tony

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Wray, Jimmy

      Mullin, Chris

      Nellist, Dave

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Frank Cook.

      O'Brien, William

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Burns, Simon

      Amess, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Amos, Alan

      Butler, Chris

      Arbuthnot, James

      Butterfill, John

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Ashby, David

      Carrington, Matthew

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Baldry, Tony

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Batiste, Spencer

      Churchill, Mr

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Colvin, Michael

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Conway, Derek

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Boswell, Tim

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Couchman, James

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Cran, James

      Bowis, John

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Curry, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

      Bright, Graham

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Day, Stephen

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

      Devlin, Tim

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Dicks, Terry

      1091

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Dover, Den

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Dunn, Bob

      Needham, Richard

      Durant, Tony

      Neubert, Michael

      Dykes, Hugh

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Evennett, David

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Fallon, Michael

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Farr, Sir John

      Page, Richard

      Favell, Tony

      Paice, James

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Forman, Nigel

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Forth, Eric

      Price, Sir David

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Redwood, John

      Franks, Cecil

      Renton, Tim

      Freeman, Roger

      Rhodes James, Robert

      French, Douglas

      Riddick, Graham

      Fry, Peter

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Gale, Roger

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Gardiner, George

      Rost, Peter

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Rowe, Andrew

      Gill, Christopher

      Ryder, Richard

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Scott, Nicholas

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Gow, Ian

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Gregory, Conal

      Sims, Roger

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Grist, Ian

      Speller, Tony

      Ground, Patrick

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Squire, Robin

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Stanley, Rt Hon John

      Hannam, John

      Steen, Anthony

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Stern, Michael

      Harris, David

      Stevens, Lewis

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Stokes, John

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Sumberg, David

      Hayward, Robert

      Summerson, Hugo

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Heddle, John

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Holt, Richard

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Howard, Michael

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Tracey, Richard

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Tredinnick, David

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Trippier, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Trotter, Neville

      Irvine, Michael

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Irving, Charles

      Viggers, Peter

      Jack, Michael

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Janman, Tim

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Key, Robert

      Walden, George

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Waller, Gary

      Knowles, Michael

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Watts, John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Wells, Bowen

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Wheeler, John

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Lord, Michael

      Wood, Timothy

      Maclean, David

      Woodcock, Mike

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Yeo, Tim

      Maples, John

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Alan Howarth.

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 295, in page 16, line 44, leave out 'with intent' and insert
      `knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the conduct is likely'.
      No. 264, in page 17, line 10, after 'landlord', insert 'in default'.
      No. 296, in page 17, line 35, after 'believe', insert `(a)'.
      No. 297, in page 17, line 39, at end add
      'or
      (b) that, where the liability would otherwise arise by virtue only of the withdrawal or withholding of services, he had reasonable grounds for withdrawing or witholding the services in question.'.
      No. 265, in page 17, line 48, at end insert
      `and any superior landlord under whom that person derives title'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

    Clause 26

      THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES
      Amendments made: No. 266, in page 18, line 11, leave out 'landlord's interest' and insert
      `interest of the landlord in default'.
      No. 267, in page 18, line 14, leave out 'the landlord's' and insert `that'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]
      Mr. Waldegrave: I beg to move amendment No. 268, in page 18, line 17, leave out 'subsection (1) above' and insert `this section'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 270, 272 and 274.
      Mr. Waldegrave: Clause 26 sets out the basis on which the court is to assess damages when a landlord is found unlawfully to have evicted a tenant under clause 25.
      As the clause stands, the court has to disregard any value that can be attributed to the potential development of the building. The matter was discussed in Committee, but it has also been discussed outside Parliament. The amendments are designed to allow development value to be taken into account in certain cases. They will increase the compensation that is available.
      A common reason why landlords want to evict tenants from houses in multiple occupation is to convert the buildings into fiats for sale. There may be large profits to be made, and the amendments should catch that sort of case. They allow any value resulting from works to the building that is within the general development order to be taken into account, as well as any value from changing the use of the building by increasing or reducing the number of residential units in it. I hope that hon. Members will accept that this is further evidence of the Government's determination to ensure that potentially very wicked behaviour does not pay. Although some people have wanted us to go further, some of the pressure groups involved, such as Shelter, have acknowledged that the amendments will be a great help.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 269, in page 18" line 18 leave out 'landlord's interest' and insert
      `interest of the landlord in default'.
      No. 270, in page 18, line 20, at end add 'together with its curtilage.'.
      No. 271, in page 18, line 23, leave out
      `is selling his interest in the building in question'
      and insert
      `in default is selling his interest'.
      No. 272, in page 18, line 27, leave out from first 'any' to end of line 29 and insert
      'substantial development of any of the land in which the landlord's interest subsists or to demolish the whole or part of any building on that land.'.
      No. 273, in page 18, line 30, leave out
      'Subsection (8) of section 25 above'
      and insert
      'In this section "the landlord in default" has the same meaning as in section 25 above and subsection (8) of that section'.
      No. 274, in page 18, leave out lines 34 and 35 and insert—
      '(6) The reference in subsection (3)(c) above to substantial development of any of the land in which the landlord's interest subsists is a reference to any development other than—

      (a) development for which planning permission is granted by a general development order for the time being in force and which is carried out so as to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission is so granted; or

      (b) a change of use resulting in the building referred to in subsection (2) above or any part of it being used as, or as part of, one or more dwelling-houses;

      and in this subsection "general development order" has the same meaning as in section 43(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and other expressions have the same meaning as in that Act.'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

    Clause 27

      FURTHER OFFENCE OF HARASSMENT
      The following amendment stood upon the Paper Amendment: No. 202, in page 18, line 39 leave out
      The landlord for residential occupier or an agent of the landlord"' and insert 'Any person'.
      Mr. Waldegrave: In the Government amendment we seek to strengthen the armoury that we have in place to deal with such problems.
      It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Housing Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Ryder.]

    Housing Bill
    As amended ( in the Standing Committee) again considered.
    Mr. Waldegrave: As I was saying, the amendment is an additional weapon in our armoury against bad landlords.
    We acknowledge that the number of successful prosecutions under existing crimimal law has been comparatively small. There have been difficulties in getting convictions, and that is why in clause 27 we have introduced a new criminal offence, which involves having to prove not that the landlord intended to evict the tenant but merely that he knew that his actions would cause the tenant to leave or had reasonable cause to believe that they would do so. Government No. 292 extends the new criminal offence to actions by a superior landlord or his agent. It parallels our amendments to clauses 25 and 26 and the Opposition will welcome it.
    The Opposition's amendment, amendment No. 202, is too wide because it applies the new offence to any person. We discussed the matter in Committee and we believe that
    1094
    there is a real risk that if we extend clause 27 as the amendment suggests, third parties whose behaviour is alleged by someone else to be anti-social, but which should certainly not be criminal, may be affected. One can imagine these powerful criminal sanctions applying in the difficult disputes between neighbours that we all hear of in our constituencies from time to time. While such disputes are a problem, they should not be dealt with by the criminal law, especially if it carries heavy sanctions such as two years in gaol.
    While I understand what lies behind the Opposition's proposals, I fear that if we accepted their amendment we should find disputes between tenants becoming involved with the criminal law in a way that would not be satisfactory. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will acknowledge that our widening of the provision is useful and that to go further would not necessarily be safe.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I thought that I would be called first, Mr. Speaker, because amendment No. 202 is our amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: I think that it was my mistake; I should have called the hon. Gentleman first. I remind the House that we are also considering Government amendment No. 292.
    Mr. Banks: I beg to move amendment No. 202. I am a sort of stand-in Whip for the evening. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I was the Whip on the Bill; some litte problems arose but I am now back in a sort of temporary agency capacity. I realise that the hour is fairly late but these are serious matters which we should address. Ministers and hon. Members should not underestimate the seriousness with which we treat the Bill.
    Amendment No. 202 relates to clause 27, which creates a new criminal offence of harassment, which applies if the landlord or his agent performs a positive act that interferes with the peace and comfort of the occupier or withholds services that he or she needs and if the landlord knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that his conduct is likely to cause the occupier to leave. The novelty of the clause is that it does away with the need for the prosecution to prove intent.
    After 10 years' experience of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, tenants and their advisers are agreed that the most difficult element of that Act which renders it, in most cases, useless is the need for the prosecution to prove that the landlord intended, by his acts, that the tenant should leave. Our amendment contains a much more sensible approach. When the landlord has reasonable cause to believe that the likely consequence of his action will be that the tenant will leave, he will be guilty of an offence.
    In clause 27 there is a strange departure from the form of words used in the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. Instead of the wording in section 1 which states:
    "Any person … shall be guilty of the offence.",
    the Bill requires the offence to be committed by the landlord or his agent. That is an unnecessary restriction and we cannot accept that our amendment is an unnecessary extension. When we are trying to deal with the rights of tenants, surely the benefit of doubt should always be given to the tenant. Therefore, we hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

    1095
    I shall give a quick example from the London borough of Newham.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am a little confused about the amendment to which the hon. Gentleman is speaking. Has he accepted my arguments on amendment No. 202? He seems to be speaking to amendment No. 203.
    Mr. Banks: I am speaking to amendment No. 202.
    I shall give an example from Newham, as ever. A house in multiple occuption in the Barking road was being investigated by the local housing office because the tenants were being charged excessive rents. There were five tenants in the house. The local housing office managed to contact four of them. The two joint tenants on the ground floor had their rent collected by a man called David. They had seen another man with him who they believed to be the owner. The sole tenant on the rear ground floor had seen a man he believed to be the owner, Mr. B. The rent was collected by his agent. The tenant did not know his name. The tenant in the first floor rear room knew that the agent was called David but he had never seen the owner. The tenant on the third floor was let the room by Mr. B who called round to the property with his brother David. As the Minister will appreciate, it was all very confusing.
    Investigations carried out at the Land Registry under section 129 of the Land Registration Act 1925 were unhelpful. The register gave the name of the owner as a third unknown person and his address as that of the property itself. When the tenants sought to register their rents they started to have problems. They had no evidence that linked the people they knew with the unknown owner.
    Tenants do not have the resources to investigate "agency" arrangements and the Minister must know that. If it is possible to prosecute directly the person who committed the acts of harassment, the evil may be stopped. It seems right that people who persecute tenants should be held responsible for those acts, even if they carry them out because they are paid by the landlord. Therefore, I ask the Minister to accept amendment No. 202.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am sorry that I misunderstood the early part of the hon. Gentleman's comments.
    There is a problem. Let us use the common example of noise in which people are constantly making life a misery by playing loud music or making other noise. As amendment No. 202 is drafted, it would not have to be demonstrated that the person making the noise was acting on behalf of the landlord. If there were disputes between neighbours in a building, we would find that the weight of the criminal prosecution, which we are aiming at people acting as agents for the landlord, could be used on a tenant who was harassing another tenant.
    I do not want to say that one tenant harassing another in a personal dispute is not a bad thing. However, there are other ways of trying to deal with that. In my constituency I find that disputes between neighbours are some of the most difficult disputes in which to become involved. But surely we do not want to hit one side of such a dispute with powers designed to deal with a landlord who is using harassment to get the tenant out and obtain possession of his property.
    1096
    I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's case but the amendment is too wide. We have to be able to demonstrate that the person is acting on behalf of the landlord. Amendment No. 202, as drafted, does not do that.
    Amendment negatived.

    Clause 27

      FURTHER OFFENCE OF HARASSMENT
      Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move amendment No. 203, in page 18, line 41, leave out 'does acts calculated' and insert
      'commits any act or omits to act or pursues any course of conduct, which act, omission, or course of conduct is likely.'
      Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
      No. 204, in page 19, line 5, leave out
      'he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that'.
      No. 205, in page 19, leave out lines 10 to 14, and insert —
      '(3B) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (3A) above—

      (a) to prove that the act, omission or course of conduct was the only means by which in all the circumstances he could have secured the health, safety and welfare of the residential occupier, or that of the residential occupier of adjacent premises, whilst making the least possible infringement of any part of this section in respect the residential occupier; or

      (b) to show that the act, omission or course of conduct occurred wholly accidentally'.

      Mr. Banks: The amendments create a criminal offence of harassment where the landlord knew or had reasonable cause to believe that his actions would lead to the tenant leaving. The amendments are similar to ones that we tabled to clause 25, which creates a new civil claim for damages, so I do not intend to linger on the arguments.
      We are now discussing the criminal law, so the prosecution must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. We therefore have that safeguard against frivolous prosecutions of trivial matters. We must ensure that we give adequate safeguards to vulnerable tenants against bad landlords.
      The Bill is generous to landlords in the extreme. For new lettings, they can charge market rents, and if they let on shorthold agreements they can recover possession any time after the end of the initial period of the tenancy, which can be as little as six months. If landlords abuse the legal procedures whereby they can recover possession of their property with comparative ease, which is what the Bill is about, there can be no excuse for them. Only an irresponsible landlord would ignore the new powers that give him such a free hand in court and choose instead to inhabit the twilight land of winkling tenants out, which we believe will happen under the Bill. One must ask why they feel unable to entertain the scrutiny of the courts in their actions for possession. For example, are they avoiding tax or are they involved in mortgage fraud? There can only be a shady and unpleasant reason why they would not use the legal powers that they have been given with such a generous hand by the Government.
      I ask the Minister to give something, however small, to tenants who at present are protected but who inevitably will become the targets of unscrupulous landlords seeking to get them out to let the property on new decontrolled rents, and to the new assured and shorthold tenants, who will have so few rights.

      1097
      In the amendments we are asking for the bare minimum. Amendment No. 203 asks not only that positive acts should amount to criminal offences but the other methods of harassment that are employed by landlords in my constituency and others. Hon. Members have given such examples, and the Minister openly accepted that they happen because he knew that we had not made them up. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) gave a litany based on his experiences of the east end and the devices that unscrupulous landlords use.
      Amendment No. 204 asks the court to deduce that the likely consequences of the landlord's actions would be that the tenant would have to leave. The court would be able to examine the proximity of the events to the result and decide whether there is a causal link between them. I do not think that, as the Under-Secretary said in Committee, we shall have hundreds of poor innocent landlords in the dock as a result of that change. Proper evidence would still have to be presented to the court and the magistrate would have to decide whether the case was proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Evidently, for once, Labour Members have more faith in the court system than the Minister and the Government.
      Amendment No. 205 tries to define the reasonable defences that a landlord may raise. We do not wish to penalise a landlord who is making proper arrangements to do repairs. It would be nonsense to do so and we made that clear in Committee and now on Report. I regret that that is the easiest way to harass a tenant but not be caught.
      I should be interested to hear what other reasonable courses of conduct the Government suggest a landlord might take and risk committing the offence of harassment. Our amendment reasonably lists the appropriate defences that a landlord might use. It gives a clear signal to landlords that conduct that interferes with the peace and comfort of tenants is not acceptable to Labour Members or, I hope, to the Government.
      Mr. Winnick: It is always a pleasure to intervene after a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and I know that he always appreciates my interventions—or so he tells me.
      10.15 pm
      There has been a great deal of publicity and we have already heard in the debate about the Minister's wish to protect tenants and about the legal steps in the Bill. If the Minister is really determind to stamp out the type of Rachmanism about which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West has just spoken, our amendments would be accepted. I know the views of the Secretary of State and that the amendments are not acceptable to the Government. Perhaps I am wrong but I suspect that the Minister's boss rather than the Minister has vetoed the amendments. The Minister is considered to be something of a wet in such matters and perhaps he would have recognised our genuine concern and accepted that what we are asking for is modest.
      I should like to repeat the point that I made earlier. These amendments are necessary for the protection of tenants who will become assured tenants and even more necessary for people who will become shorthold tenants. One of our worries, understandable in view of what occurred under the Tory's 1957 Act, is the present position of regulated tenants. The Minister has dismissed my anxiety and has said that some abuse is occurring now. We
      1098
      recognise that, but tenants who remain regulated when the Bill becomes law will contine to have their rents regulated and they will not be market rents.
      Many such tenants, especially in places such as London, will be at great risk from their landlords. That is because the landlords will know that their tenants can be forced out legally and that the houses can he rented out again at market rents. The lettings would automatically be on market rents and on assured tenancies or, more than likely, on shorthold tenancies. That is all the more reason why tenants who will continue to have protection and who have every right to remain in their accommodation should be protected in law. The entire answer to giving such protection would be to leave the situation as it is.
      There is no doubt that the Bill will become law. An amendment that will protect the interests of regulated tenants and enable them to remain in their accommodation within the law is certainly welcome. Such an amendment would prevent tenants from ending up in squalid accommodation or in bed-and-breakfast hostels.
      Mr. Waldegrave: I strongly disagree with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that the best thing to do and the solution to all the problems is to leave things as they are. As some of his hon. Friends have eloquently explained, the present situation is far from satisfactory.
      We looked again at this after a similar discussion in Committee. The amendment proposes an incredibly wide automatic use of the criminal law. A landlord who does not repair a dwelling and thereby causes the tenant to leave would not have to know that the tenant intended to leave. He would find himself committing an offence even if he did not know the outcome of his actions. Amendment No. 205 provides a defence, but it is very narrow and one must remember that we cannot introduce the full panoply of' the criminal law without very great care.
      It would be quite wrong to introduce a criminal offence that could be proved almost automatically by the omission of something. In many cases the landlord would not have had any intention of committing an offence nor any knowledge of the tenant's reaction. It is not enough just to say that, if he proves that it was accidental, he has a defence. He has to know what would be in the tenant's mind. If he guesses wrong, he finds himself in gaol for a criminal offence. I think that this is too wide.
      Mr. Tony Banks: It is not as if the tenant will go to court, and the landlord will automatically be locked up or penalised, simply because the tenant attends. The Minister makes it sound as though it would be a matter of straightforward procedure and that the tenant will prove the point in that way. The whole idea of this going through the courts is that one has to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. We have some faith in the courts and, therefore, if the case being mounted by the tenant does not stand up, of course the magistrate will not find in favour of the tenant. I do not think it is automatic.
      Mr. Waldegrave: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is defining a possible criminal act which in the words of his own amendment would be committed if the person
      "acts or omits to act or pursues any course of conduct, which act, omission, or course of conduct is likely"
      to have the effect of making the tenant leave.
      I agree that the conviction is not automatic, but the commission of the offence is, which is what we must be

      1099
      concerned about in the House. It is then up to the police to catch the criminal. The landlord would automatically have committed a criminal offence without having any intention of damaging the tenant. It really is too wide.
      There are problems here about not getting the repairs done. I argue that that is not an issue where we should use the criminal law. Rather, we should strengthen, as we are strengthening elsewhere, the capacity of local authorities to make stiffer repair orders and so forth that can be properly designed to deal with that problem.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendment made: No. 292, in page 19, line 22, at end insert
      'and any superior landlord under whom that person derives title'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

    Clause 28

      VARIATION OF SCOPE OF 1977 SS.3 AND 4
      Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move amendment No. 206, in page 19, leave out lines 23 to 26.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 207, in page 19, line 27, leave out 'that section' and insert
      'section 3 of the 1977 Act (prohibition of eviction without due process of law)'
      No. 208, in page 19, line 30, leave out the words
      'other than an excluded licence,'.
      No. 209, in page 19, leave out lines 35 to 43.
      No. 210, in page 20, line 4, leave out
      '(other than an excluded licence)'.
      No. 211, in page 20, line 9, leave out clause 29.
      Government amendment No. 40.
      No. 230, in clause 29, page 20, line 17, leave out
      'or a member of the owner's family (whether or not in common with other persons.'.
      No. 234, in page 20, line 21, leave out
      'also at the time it comes to an end'
      and insert
      'at all times since then'.
      Government amendment No. 41.
      No. 231, in page 20, line 22, leave out
      'or a member of his family'.
      Government amendments Nos. 42 to 47.
      Mr. Banks: These amendments relate to clauses 28 and 29 which change the Rent Act 1977. We have accepted that clauses 25, 26 and 27 and the amendments that the Government have moved tighten the law—but, as we have said, not as much as we would like—against illegal eviction. It seems a depressingly inevitable consequence that the Government could not give something to tenants without, of course, wanting to take something from them at the same time. In clauses 28 and 29, they take the most basic protection from certain tenants and licensees: the right to proper notice and an order from the court when evicting tenants and licensees in certain circumstances.
      Those circumstances are, first, if the tenant is sharing certain living accommodation with the landlord or a member of the landlord's family at the beginning and ending of the tenancy; secondly, if the tenancy or licence was granted as a temporary expedient to a person who entered the accommodation as a squatter; thirdly, holiday
      1100
      lets; fourthly, hostels provided by statutory or voluntary bodies; and, fifthly, anyone else whom the Secretary of State names.
      We believe that this seriously undermines the protection from arbitrary eviction that tenants are entitled to expect. We are not asking that the landlord should not be able to obtain possession of his property in certain circumstances, only that there should be proper scrutiny of the facts when possession is sought. For example, are the Government really saying that people living in hostels, possibly having been discharged from institutions dealing with drink or drug dependency problems, should be evicted on to the streets without any protection whatsoever from the courts? If the Government's response is to say that they do not expect hostels to evict residents in such a way, what is the point in giving them the power to do so? One does not give powers to certain institutions and agencies without expecting them to use them at some time in the future.
      I turn now to the vexed question of holiday lets. I have often thought, Mr. Speaker, about what you could get for a holiday let of your premises when you go away. You are not even listening, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.] Ah, yes, Mr. Speaker, I was saying that holiday lets are the largest category of sham lettings. As we all know, genuine holiday lets do not create security of tenure, but removing the need for a court order makes shams even more attractive to landlords wishing to abuse the system because the court hearing is usually the only point at which the sham can be tested.
      I give the Minister of State a good example. Nurses working at the Royal Free hospital in Hampstead were let rooms on holiday let agreements in the street opposite the hospital. At the end of the six months of the let, it was extended by a further six months. After taking advice, the nurses applied for fair rents to be registered on the premises. The landlord then applied to the courts for possession, but the court upheld the nurses' claim that it was a sham and that they had a protected tenancy. That was because they had the ability to go to court and that is why we feel that it is wrong that that ability should be taken away.
      Resident landlords of houses in multiple occupation regularly keep a room locked and vacant for, they say, their own use which, if the clauses remain unchanged, will make bogus residency claims harder to disprove as evictions will take place without any court hearings. Obviously, resident landlords who no longer have a reasonable relationship with their tenants will want to obtain possession, but as the tenants do not have full security a possession order could be reasonably and easily obtained. However, in our experience it is more often the landlord who makes petty rules and regulations and generally makes life unpleasant for the tenant rather than the other way round.
      I give the Minister another brief example. A student renting a room from a resident landlord in Canterbury was told that she could not have friends to visit or jointly study, that she should not come in after 10 pm or use the bathroom after 9 pm and that she had to vacate the room at weekends if the landlord had any family coming to stay. She was constantly made aware by the landlord that any infringement of those rules or any other disagreement with him would lead to eviction. She was therefore in a state of agitation up to and during her final exams.

      1101
      The forms of tenure being removed from the law would not be the first choice for those with any real choice in the decisions about their housing. However, such tenures will be the only option for people who, because of age, disability, income or ethnic origin, have no real choice about the accommodation that they occupy. The Minister must know that that is often the case. Such people should not be further penalised by the removal of the vestige of protection that they have at the moment.
      The Government are already allowing landlords easier access to courts for possession proceedings, and required notice periods have been reduced. Our amendments do not seek full security for such tenures. We seek only to ensure that the courts are still involved before evictions take place. Excluded tenures would be an incentive to create shams, which are notoriously difficult to prove once the tenant has been evicted. Where possession proceedings are not being brought, the tenant has no easy access to the court to show that a sham is in operation. Tenants would have to predict their landlords' actions and go to court for declarations of protected tenancies, leaving themselves open to harassment and early eviction. Alternatively, they would have to fight their case after they had been evicted, when not only would the facts be difficult to prove, but legal aid would be difficult to obtain.
      I am sure that, on reflection, the Minister will accept that it is unreasonable to remove what minimal protection already exists in such specific examples and I am sure that he will now be willing to accept our amendments.
      Mr. Waldegrave: As a result of the discussions in Committee we believed that one matter needed amendment. I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will welcome that fact, although I do not accept some of his other points. The hon. Gentleman will remember that we undertook in Committee—I know that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will remember this—to have another look at the situation where the resident landlord is said to be sharing and the tenant is excluded because he is sharing with a member of the resident landlord's family. That seemed to us to be quite an easy form of abuse. A resident landlord could scatter members of his family round and about. We have dealt with that in amendments Nos. 40 to 47.
      Although hon. Members on both sides of the House will approve of the provisions of clause 28 in general, and the strengthening of the Protection from Eviction Act which they represent, we must he careful that as we extend the Bill to cover licences by making the position of licensees far stronger, which we are doing, we do not produce any problems or difficulties. It is inevitable that, if we are to strengthen the position of licensees in general, we have to consider one or two exceptions, and we have done that.
      It has been put to me by a number of bodies involved that it would make the management of hostels impossible if hostel authorities had to get a court order to evict a resident who did not want to move. It might even mean that they had to get a court order to move a resident within the hostel.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I know that the Minister has been approached by the National Federation of Housing Associations about hostels and licences. Does he intend to
      1102
      apply the same approach in the private sector as in the social sector to hostel users and the difficulties involved in such licences?
      Mr. Waldegrave: We shall come to another matter regarding hostels, which I had better not quote from memory at this time of night in case I get it wrong. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have been in touch with the NFHA and have visited some of the hostels in my constituency and talked through some of the problems and tried to meet them. We shall have to make another amendment in another place fully to deal with the question, but we shall come back to it.
      We want to encourage resident landlords properly to use their property and to let spare accommodation. We know that they will not do that if it means sharing with someone they cannot easily remove if relations deteriorate. We must all have heard such constituency stories; I certainly have.
      Hon. Members accept that in general the resident landlord exclusion is justified and the extension of the provision to cases in which a tenant or licensee shares accommodation with a member of the landlord's or licensor's family was more difficult. We want to cover cases in which the property is sub-divided in such a way that the tenant shares with a family member—say, the landlord's mother—in one part of the house and the landlord lives in another part of the house. We have not quite achieved that and that is why we have tabled amendments.
      The hon. Member for Newham, North-West raised the matter of holiday lets. There has been a problem with holiday lets. We strongly argue the converse of the arguments that were put to us by the Opposition. Shorthold and market rents will make the incentive for sham holiday lets disappear, and that abuse will go of its own accord when the Bill is passed. It would be monstrous for someone making a genuine holiday letting to have to get a court order to evict a holidaymaker who outstayed his let. In many parts of the country where holiday letting is a key part of the rural economy that would produce very severe problems.
      Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Minister any evidence, any hard statistics, about genuine holiday lets which do not create any security of tenancy ending up with the landlord having to go to court to get the tenant out? Do any statistics show such abuse?
      Mr. Waldegrave: I shall check and find out whether there are, but obviously it would be wrong to do anything that would encourage such abuse. More important" the case that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West described would have been answered by shorthold. Presumably the landlord would have let on shorthold and not needed to use the mechanism of a sham holiday let.
      I ask hon. Members to recognise that the widened provisions of the Protection from Eviction Act cannot be sensible if there are no excluded licences and I ask them to reject the Opposition amendments and to accept our amendments which meet the commitment that we made in Committee.
      Mr. Tony Banks: We are bitterly disappointed at the Minister's failure to accept a reasonable set: of amendments, but on this occasion we shall not press the amendment to a vote.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 29

      EXCLUDED TENANCIES AND LICENCES
      Amendments made: No. 40, in page 20, line 16, leave out from 'occupier' to 'and' in line 19 and insert
      'shares any accommodation with the landlord or licensor'.
      No. 41, in page 20, line 22, leave out
      `owner or a member of his family'
      and insert 'landlord or licensor'.
      No. 42, in page 20, line 24, leave out from 'the' to `formed' in line 25 and insert 'shared accommodation'.
      No. 43, in page 20, line 25, at end add—
      `(2A) A tenancy or licence is also excluded if—

      (a) under its terms the occupier shares any accommodation with a member of the family of the landlord or licensor:

      (b) immediately before the tenancy or licence was granted and also at the time it comes to an end, the member of the family of the landlord or licensor occupied as his only or principal home premises of which the whole or part of the shared accommodation formed part; and

      (c) immediately before the tenancy or licence was granted and also at the time it comes to an end, the landlord or licensor occupied as his only or principal home premises in the same building as the shared accommodation and that building is not a purpose-built block of flats.

      (2B) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (2A) above, an occupier shares accommodation with another person if he has the use of it in common with that person (whether or not also in common with others) and any reference in those subsections to shared accommodation shall be construed accordingly, and if, in relation to any tenancy or licence, there is at any time more than one person who is the landlord or licensor, any reference in those subsections to the landlord or licensor shall be construed as a reference to any one of those persons.'.
      No. 44, in page 20, line 26, leave out 'subsection (2)' and insert 'subsections (2) to (2B)'.
      No. 45, in page 20, leave out lines 30 to 34.
      No. 46, in page 20, line 36, at end insert
      `and
      (d) "purpose-built block of flats" has the same meaning as in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1988'.
      No. 47, in page 20, line 39, leave out `(2)' and insert `(2A)'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

    Clause 30

      NOTICE TO QUIT ETC.
      Mr. Grist: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 21, line 37, leave out 'of premises occupied' and insert `to occupy premises'.
      The new subsection (1A) which clause 30 inserts into section 5 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 requires an owner to give four weeks' notice to terminate a periodic licence. This parallels the existing provision in section 5(1) that four weeks' notice must be given to bring a periodic tenancy to an end. This amendment brings subsection (1A) more closely into line with section 5(1) by providing that the dwelling does not have to be occupied for the notice requirement to apply.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
      Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

  Railway Accident (Colwich Junction)
  Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
  10.35 pm
  Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): I am most grateful for this opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the subject of the Department of Transport's report on the rail accident which occurred at Colwich junction in the middle of my Mid-Staffordshire constituency on 19 September 1986.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport for kindly being in the Chamber to reply to this debate, and I say that with the utmost sincerity because he has attended most diligently to the parliamentary questions that I have tabled in the intervening period on this matter. When the Department's inspector's report was published on 31 March 1988 he took the trouble to give me a copy at the same time as it was released to the press. For that I am extremely grateful because the press regionally and locally in Staffordshire and the west midlands paid particularly close attention and interest to the outcome of the report on the crash.
  For the record I shall remind the House what occurred. There was a collision on a main railway line running from Euston to Liverpool at 28 minutes past six on Friday 19 September 1986 between the Euston to Manchester express train and a Liverpool to Euston express train in the London midland region of British Rail at a place called Colwich junction. The opening paragraphs of the report state:
  "the 17.00 Euston to Manchester Piccadilly express passenger train, electrically hauled and consisting of 13 vehicles"
  was
  "diverted from the Down Fast line to the Down Slow line some 800 yards from the switch diamonds forming the Junction between the Down Slow-Down Manchester line and the Up Crewe-Euston line and ran past the signal protecting the Junction at Danger, coming to a stand, or nearly so, with the locomotive straddling the switch diamonds of the Junction, 259 yards beyond the signal."
  The other train was the 17.20 Liverpool to Euston express passenger train, again electrically hauled, but containing 12 carriages. The report continues:
  "It was travelling under clear signals at a speed of 95–100 mile/h on the Up West Coast Main Line closely approaching Colwich Junction when, without time for the driver to apply the brakes, the locomotive of the Manchester train was seen ahead astride the junction."
  The two trains collided—obviously, since they were both express trains—with tremendous force. They were derailed, all wheels, and turned over on their sides. The pictures in the national press the following day and on the 9 o'clock news that evening were quite horrendous.
  At this point I would like to place on record—it has been done at other times and in other places—the gratitude of my constituents and, I know, of the families involved in the crash with whom I have been in touch to all the emergency services—the ambulance service, the nursing services, the various hospitals in the Mid-Staffordshire health authority and the police. I would like to pay a particular tribute to my constituents in the villages of Colwich, Great Haywood, Little Haywood and Rugeley who took families and others involved in the collision into their homes to provide comfort and temporary accommodation.

  1105
  Out of 373 passengers on the Manchester train and 500 passengers on the Liverpool train, 75 were injured, and the driver of one of the trains was tragically killed. It was a mercy that only one person was killed.
  As I understand it, my hon. Friend instructed the railway inspectorate in the Department of Transport, on 22 September, to launch an inquiry and prepare a report on the events of that evening of 19 September. That report was sent to the Department of Transport on 29 February this year and, as I have reminded the House, published on 31 March. I do not wish to dwell in detail on the report; it is a very technical and, to my inexperienced and unschooled eye—my knowledge of railways, apart from commuting regularly from Euston to Birmingham International, derives from playing with my Hornby Dublo some years ago now—most extensively and comprehensively prepared. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend, who knows much more about these matters, because of his departmental responsibilities, will agree with that. I have learnt a great deal from having read the report thoroughly, but it raises a few disturbing questions regarding the conduct of certain aspects of British Rail's relationship with some of its employees, and other matters, and I felt it right to bring these to the attention of the House and to seek an assurance from my hon. Friend that some lessons will be learnt from this tragedy.
  First, I cannot understand why it should have taken 18 months to prepare a report. I have said that it is a report of considerable comprehensiveness and thoroughness, but 18 months strikes me as a very long time, and I will explain why the delay has caused anguish to a number of people closely connected with the collision in a moment. I think it is a long time because, on the first Friday of March of last year, some six months after the Colwich crash, there was an even more horrendous collision—that of the Herald of Free Enterprise in Zeebrugge. The report in that respect, also commissioned by my hon. Friend's Department, was published on 24 July of last year, just four months after the collision. I find it difficult, therefore, to understand why the Colwich junction crash report took 18 months.
  When a representative of the regional press, having read on the Order Paper that this Adjournment debate was to be held, made contact with British Rail, I understand that he was told that 18 months was par for the course. Those are the words that have been reported to me. If that is true, I find it a disturbing element of apathy, and I hope that my hon. Friend, if such a collision occurred again and he was in a position to instruct his inspectorate, would ensure that it prepared its report rather more swiftly. I say that because the report entirely exonerates from blame the driver of one of the express trains. I refer to Driver Eric Goode, who, as I have said, tragically died in the crash. He was a constituent not of mine but of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). She hoped to be present to make a brief intervention this evening, but I have received a note from the Message Board indicating that she has been detained at Heathrow on her way back from a conference in Rome.
  I had the privilege of meeting Driver Goode's widow at a memorial service which the BBC's religious affairs department staged in Colwich church three months after the tragedy. She has kept in touch with me ever since. I believe it to be true that very little contact was made by British Rail—and I have raised this point with my hon.
  1106
  Friend in the past—during the passage of the inquiry. If my information is correct, Driver Goode's widow has still not received a copy of the inspector's report.
  Because of the publicity attracted by my campaign to persuade the authorities to speed up the inspector's report, by way of tabling written questions in the intervening period, the family of the signalman most directly involved at the particular point in the railway line concerned was also under considerable pressure between the time of the crash and the publication of the inspector's report. The report makes reference to him. He lives in the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). That signalman, as with Driver Goode, is totally exonerated from any blame or responsibility for what occurred. However, the clouds of suspicion and guilt which hung over those two families during the period of the report's production must have been unbearable and intolerable. Anything that can be done to expedite inquiries of that nature, as happened in the case of the Zeebrugge disaster, must be to the benefit of those most directly involved.
  I turn to the inspector's conclusions. First, the blame for the collision was placed, sadly and tragically, but fairly and squarely, on the shoulders of the driver of the other express train. One can, from a close inspection of the report, glean the information that he broke a number of rules, including having in his cabin a British Rail employee who should not have been allowed there.
  I am concerned to be assured that the driver—and I shall not mention his name because that would be inappropriate—if he is still employed by British Rail, should not be driving express trains. I draw a comparison with someone who causes an accident on the M1 or M6, and who may as a result be convicted of driving carelessly, dangerously or recklessly, and banned from driving for a time or even for life. In a case of this nature, where there was clearly a breach of rules—and dare I suggest that there may have been an element of negligence—the public has a right to know whether the person responsible is still entrusted with driving trains, be they goods trains, suburban trains or express trains.
  The recommendation of the inspector at paragraph 83 was:
  "The reduction in the number of motive power inspectors, as part of the general 'slimming' down of the railway staff, is, in my opinion, a retrograde step which can only lead to less efficient supervision on vital safety matters."
  I am not sufficiently technically qualified—indeed, I am not technically qualified at all—to know what a motive power inspector is, but clearly he is of considerable importance in ensuring the safety of the rolling stock. If there has been a general slimming down of such personnel, that must have a bearing on the safety of our rolling stock. I invite my hon. Friend, when he replies, to tell me the present position.
  I also wish to draw the attention of the House to paragraph 84 of the inspector's recommendations, which is very disturbing:
  "In addition, this accident emphasises the importance of the continual updating of the British Railways Rule Book, together with associated safety documents. I find the fact that Section C Clause 3.1.1. was not amended or expanded from its original issue dealing with Yellow Flashing Aspects on the approaches to diverging junctions in 1977 until after and resulting from this accident in 1986 most disturbing".
  To me that means that British Rail's rule book had not been updated for 11 years until these recommendations were published. I hesitate to think what the position might

  1107
  be today if the Colwich crash had not occurred. I wonder when British Rail would have got round to updating the rule book—presumably every engine driver's working manual. I ask my hon. Friend to obtain assurances, if possible, (a) that the rule book has been updated, and (b) that express train drivers familiarise themselves with it at regular intervals.
  The final point which attracts my attention, and one which disturbs me greatly, is contained in paragraph 86:
  "A considerable part of this Report has dealt with the braking of train 1H20 immediately prior to the collision. Despite invoking the braking experts of the Director of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering and the Director of Research, also carrying out two sets of speed and braking tests using the coaches actually involved in the collision, or where that was not possible, similar coaches, I am still not completely convinced that the braking after the emergency brake application by"—
  the driver who was subsequently found to be guilty—
  "was as effective as one would have expected. Considerable attention has been paid to the effect of the operation of wheel slide prevention equipment on MkIII coaches and, while I accept that the Lucas Girling equipment, as fitted to the coaches on train 1H20, has not been found to suffer from spurious cyclic activity, I accept the evidence of Senior Technician Morgan that he heard considerable wheel slide prevention activity as the MkIII coaches passed Colwich Signal Box."
  The fact that the inspector was not completely convinced that the braking after the emergency brake application by the driver was as effective as it might have been leads me to suggest to my hon. Friend that members of the travelling public have a right to be assured that all possible attention is paid to these braking systems, however sophisticated they may be, to ensure that if such a crash ever occurred again it would not draw the sort of adverse comment that I have just quoted.
  I raise these points and invite my hon. Friend's comments simply to ensure that we as Members of Parliament can scrutinise as far as possible the activities and the management of British Rail and other nationalised bodies. If I had written to the chairman of British Rail or to the person specifically responsible for the inquiry, I would probably not have got as full, frank and direct a reply as I shall get from my hon. Friend the Minister. I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue.
  10.54 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): My hon. Friend will be aware that the functions of the railway inspectorate of the Department of Transport involve the inspection and approval of new railway works and the investigation of railway accidents.
  Of course, principal responsibility for railway safety rests with the railway operators themselves. The British Railways Board has a duty under section 3(1) of the Transport Act 1962 to have due regard to efficiency, economy and safety of operation, and it is always conscious of that.
  My hon. Friend will also know that the inquiry into the Colwich collision was held under section 7 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1871. Any recommendations made by the inspector in his report are not statutorily binding, and thus British Rail is not forced to adopt them. It is an accepted practice, however, that the British Railways Board gives due consideration to the report as a whole, and to the recommendations in particular. The
  1108
  member of the board responsible for safety, David Rayner, will reply to the Secretary of State in due course—it normally takes two or three months—commenting on the report and the action that the board proposes to take on the recommendations. I say that because my hon. Friend may find the context helpful.
  My hon. Friend has referred to the cause of the accident. I confirm that the immediate cause of the collision was that the driver of the Euston-Manchester train passed the signal protecting Colwich junction at danger and, despite making an emergency application of the brakes shortly before reaching the signal, failed to bring the train to a halt until the locomotive was on the actual junction.
  The reason for the driver passing the signal at danger was his ignorance of the meaning of the flashing yellow aspects and the associated signals approaching Colwich junction. It was the first time he had driven over the route since the signalling had been altered and flashing yellow aspects introduced on the approach to the cross-over from the down fast to the down slow line on the approach to the junction. The driver had received and signed for two weekly notices the month before the accident which gave details of the signalling alterations, but he had not read them. Had he studied them, there is little doubt that he would not have mistaken the meaning of the signals and would have braked so that he came to a halt before the signal protecting the junction.
  I shall deal separately with braking, a possible contributory cause to the accident.
  I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the emergency services on the efficiency with which they evacuated those involved. In particular, I praise the exemplary action of Signalman Millward, who was on duty in the Colwich signal box. He was completely unable to prevent the accident, but, immediately it occurred, he took all the necessary steps to stop all approaching trains and alert the emergency services. I understand that he subsequently found it a strain to work in that signal box and that he has been moved to another signal box in the area where he is more settled.
  As my inspector has stated, the death of Driver Goode, the driver of the Liverpool-Euston train, was particularly tragic, as he had no chance to protect himself. I am sorry also to learn that his widow has recently died. Although it was in no way his duty, throughout his inquiry, my inspector kept in touch with Mrs. Goode and her son Stewart, the latter expressing gratitude on behalf of his mother for the sympathetic attitude shown to the family. I am also assured that the regional operations manager of London midland region personally visited Mrs. Goode after the accident and ensured that the welfare department was providing all the necessary help. I hope that my hon. Friend will be glad to receive that assurance.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the delay in publishing the report. He questioned the 18-month time scale and asked whether it was par for the course. The answer is no. The normal time scale is about half that. My hon. Friend has asked me several questions about that matter.
  I should explain that the delay in completing the report was due to the extensive technical investigations that had to be carried out. The responsibility for delaying the publication of the report until the technical investigation had been completed lies with the inspector who held the inquiry. I believe that he acted correctly in trying to determine by all means possible why the brakes appeared

  1109
  not to operate as efficiently as usual when the driver made an emergency brake application. These investigations included carrying out a number of speed-brake tests with trains as similar as possible to the Euston-Manchester express involved in the accident. When those tests proved inconclusive, he arranged for a special working party of the directorate of mechanical and electrical engineering and the research directorate, British Railways Board, to carry out further investigations in depth into the braking of the train and the possible effect of the malfunctioning or the excessive operation of the wheel slide prevention equipment fitted to the Mark III coaches—in layman's terms, a device to prevent skidding. The inspector was closely associated with those investigations and it was only at the end of last year that he accepted that no definite results could he obtained to explain the apparent poor braking of the Manchester express. He then produced his report as rapidly as possible.
  My hon. Friend raised a number of other specific points, particularly with regard to the question of the position of the driver of the train who was at fault. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that any disciplinary action taken by British Railways concerning its staff is a matter entirely for the railway management, and it would be quite wrong for me to comment on the action taken over the driver of the Euston-Manchester train. I understand, however, that the driver, after a long period of sickness, has now been reinstated as a driver, but is now confined to shunting and other local duties.
  My hon. Friend also raised the question of the motive power inspectors. I noticed that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) nodded knowingly at that point because he thought that that was a sign that the Government have been cutting corners. I shall show the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend that there is no truth in such an assertion. The report emphasises the importance of motive power inspectors who travel in the cab to check the correct handling of locomotives by drivers and their knowledge of the "road" generally, and signalling in particular.
  I understand that there are difficulties in computing the number of motive power inspectors who carry out this function because some of them also instruct drivers. I now understand that the number of inspectors involved has in fact remained much the same for several years, but because the number of drivers has declined the number of inspectors in relation to the number of drivers has actually increased, and the standard of supervision has improved. I am sure that the House will be glad to have that information and correction to the inspector's report.
  My hon. Friend also referred to the updating of the rule book. He drew attention to the inspector's remarks about
  1110
  the importance of continual updating of the British Railways rule book and his recommendation that more attention should be paid to updating rules and other relevant safety documents.
  As the report states, the rule dealing with the use and meaning of signal aspects, including flashing yellow ones, was altered on 4 April 1987, clarifying the meaning of main aspects. Since then, the board has issued a complete revision of the rule book which came into effect on 4 June 1988. That too clarifies the meaning of signalling aspects, and I am sure the board will heed my inspector's recommendation and pay special attention to keeping the rules up to date.
  I refer finally to braking. Somewhat against the clock I must state that, despite extensive investigations into the braking of the Euston-Manchester train, including two sets of speed and braking tests carried out with the coaches actually involved, the inspector has not been completely convinced of the reason why braking after the emergency brake application was not as effective as it was expected to be.
  The full emergency application of the brakes is likely to introduce wheel slide even on dry rails, particularly if adhesion is reduced by any contaminant. That would activate the wheel slide prevention equipment where fitted. Therefore, there must be some reason to believe that it was not mechanical failure that caused the wheel slide mechanism to operate and therefore to slow the effectiveness of the emergency application of brakes. We can never know for certain, but possibly there was some matter on the surface of the track that acted as a lubricant and therefore led to skidding. The reaction of the mechanism, perfectly properly, tried to prevent that skidding from continuing. That led the inspector to recommend that, in the full emergency application of brakes, all brakes should be fully applied even if wheel slide occurs and wheel flats are made on the wheels. The inspector recommends the fitting of equipment to eliminate automatically the operation of the wheel slide prevention equipment in the event of an emergency brake application being made.
  That is a somewhat technical explanation. I hope ghat my hon. Friend will find it helpful. I am grateful to him for raising the matter this evening and giving me the opportunity to explain to him and to the House the background to the four key matters that he raised that arise from the report.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Eleven o'clock.