EXTENDED DISCRETION OF COURT IN POSSESSION CLAIMS (Hansard, 26 October 1988)

§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 8.

§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
The amendments improve the drafting of the Bill by specifying the relevant 330 sections of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 and by using the correct Scottish terminology.

§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is designed to remove an anomaly in the Bill. It ensures that a sheriff may not sist, suspend or postpone proceedings or an order for possession when a short assured tenancy is involved. It simply brings the treatment of short assured tenancies in that respect into line with that of the other mandatory grounds for possession in schedule 5.

§ Mr. Doran
I am not quite sure what is intended by the amendment. Without it, would the sheriff have the right to suspend the operation of a notice to quit? If so, I want to say something about removing that power from the sheriff.

§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
We have in mind the example of an engineer working abroad, perhaps in the middle east, who lets his house for a year on a short assured tenancy. He could be severely prejudiced if the proceedings were sisted. It might be his only house. Landlords let on a short assured tenancy basis because they wish to be certain of gaining possession at the end of the tenancy when, for example, they might be returning from abroad. They need to be able to reoccupy what might be their only home. Tenants who accept short assured tenancies will be well aware of the period of tenancy and will have no expectation of retaining possession thereafter. A landlord who seeks an order for possession should not have to wait indefinitely for the order to be granted or to take effect.

§ Mr. Doran
rose—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken once and must be aware that that is not in order.

§ Mr. McAllion
The Minister referred to a landlord who had let his house on a short assured tenancy and wanted repossession without having a fight in the courts. What is to prevent commercial landlords in Scotland from letting their properties on short assured tenancies and using this legislation as a way of evicting tenants so that they can put up rents? What protection is there against abuse of the proposed amendment by commercial landlords?

§ Mr. Hood
Does my hon. Friend agree that landlords will be tempted to opt fox short assured tenancies not because they are going abroad for a year or two but to keep within the legislation? They could still ask a tenant for a 25 per cent. increase in rent—as already happens in London—and when that is refused could give four week's notice and then throw out the tenant. The tenancy will continue only for as long as the tenant pays the increases in rent. Is not that our fear about the legislation?

§ Mr. McAllion
My hon. Friend makes a fair point about a matter of great concern. The Minister cannot simply skate over it. I realise that Conservative Members think the world is full of kindly commercial landlords who 331 are in business only to help tenants find housing at reasonable rents. Of course, Conservative Members may well be landlords; they are certainly not tenants. Most of them own substantial properties and have substantial incomes. They do not understand ordinary people living in Scotland.
The Minister knows that Shelter has produced figures showing that the waiting lists for council and housing association houses in Dundee have risen by 102 per cent. during the past seven years. People in Dundee do not have access to decent housing; there are too many people chasing too few houses. When the private sector does revive, it will be on a basis of short assured tenancies. People will accept them simply as a means of obtaining housing because there is nothing else available. The Minister must think of the problems that will confront those people when they are faced with eviction because they cannot pay a massive rent increase. It is possible that commercial landlords will abuse the social security system and use housing benefit to push up rents beyond what would be regarded as reasonable by ordinary people.
I draw the Minister's attention to a former children's home in my constituency. When it was under the control of the regional council, conditions were laid down relating to its use and it provided beds for between 30 and 35 children. The home has now passed into the hands of private sector landlords who have turned it into a hostel. Instead of providing 30 to 35 beds for children, it now provides 96 beds for adults. They expect 96 adults to live in a building that used to accommodate 35 children. That is how they exploit the poor—those who have no access to housing—and they are exploiting them to the best of their abilities. The Minister must face that problem and ensure that the House does not pass amendments that create loopholes that commercial landlords can use to exploit tenants on social security benefits.

§ Mrs. Fyfe
I do not think that many would dispute the right of a person to re-occupy his home when returning from abroad. Can the Minister give any figures for short assured tenancies that fall into that category? Can he give figures for commercial landlords who will look upon this aspect of the legislation with delight and seize the opportunity to evict with ease? I am sure that that figure will be very much larger than the figure for people returning from abroad.
I accuse the Minister of misleading the House by choosing that example, which appeared so reasonable and sensible, but not explaining the commercial landlord aspect. He did not cite the example of commercial landlords which is far more relevant to the poor people who will be their victims.

§ Mr. Home Robertson
The Minister said that, with this amendment, he is removing an anomaly from the Bill, but he is removing the sheriff's discretion. He is removing short assured tenancies from the sheriff's extended discretion in eviction proceedings. We regard that as another retrograde step to weaken the limited security of tenants with short assured tenancies. Under this provision, even if he may believe that the tenant has a strong case because of special circumstances, the sheriff will have no 332 discretion whatever. This is an eviction Bill, and the amendment simply strengthens that aspect of it, and we deplore it.

§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
I shall answer one or two questions of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). I query his assumption that tenancies will automatically be short assured tenancies when commercial landlords are involved. I query that assumption because the rent for a short assured tenancy is likely to be lower than that for an assured tenancy, because there is not the same security of tenure for the tenant. Therefore, the norm should be a lower rent. In any case, it is important that the booklet explaining tenants' rights should be made readily available, and hard work has been put into that. The tenant on a short assured tenancy may go to the rent assessment committee at any time if he wishes to raise a certain point.