ASSURED SHORTHOLD TENANCIES (Hansard, 9 June 1988)

§ 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.