§ Madam Deputy SpeakerWith 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. GristA 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. SoleyIn 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 HughesI 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. GristI 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. WaldegraveI 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 SpeakerWith 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. WaldegraveThis 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. SoleyI 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 HughesI, 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. WaldegraveI 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.
§ Ms. PrimaroloThe 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. WaldegraveWe 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. SoleyThe 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. WaldegraveThere 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.