STATUTORY TENANTS: SUCCESSION (Hansard, 26 October 1988)

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

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we can also discuss Lords amendments No. 39, 76, Government amendment (d) and Lords amendment No. 83.

§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
Amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 76 make two changes to clause 43 and schedule 6. One is purely a presentational one. The other introduces transitional provisions to protect the succession rights of certain prospective tenants. The presentational change is quite significant and is designed to make what are complex changes to complex legislation easier to follow.
As a result of the Lords amendments clause 43 will introduce a new section 3A to the 1984 Act to introduce different schedules which will come into play in different circumstances. Schedule 6 becomes the vehicle for importing two new schedules to supplement schedule 1 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984, which will remain in its present form subject to a minor drafting change, made by amendment No. 83.
Schedule 1 of the 1984 Act will continue to apply to succession in cases where the original tenant and the first successor to a regulated tenancy die before commencement of Part II of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 pave the way for the new format of schedule 6 to the Bill, set out in amendment No. 76, which introduces two new schedules —1A and 1B—to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984.
Schedule 1 A will apply to succession in cases in which the original tenant of a protected tenancy dies after commencement of part II of the Bill. Schedule 1B will apply to succession in cases in which someone who is a first successor to a regulated tenancy dies after commencement of part II of the Bill, but the original tenant dies before commencement.
As to transitional provisions, hon. Members will, I am sure, be pleased that the new schedules 1A and 1B incorporate the transitional provisions which provide a right of succession to a statutory assured tenancy for members of a tenant's family who have already lived with the tenant for six months at the commencement date of the Bill. They will not have to fulfil the new two-year residence requirement.
As a result of the recasting of schedule 6 achieved by amendment 76, an entry in schedule 10 of the Bill—the repeal schedule—is no longer required. The consequential amendment in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend removes that unnecessary entry.

§ Mr. Home Robertson
This is no big deal. It is merely a redraft of clause 43 and part I of schedule 6 on succession of tenant. Our main objection to the original draft of this part of the legislation still stands. It is that the relative will now have to live with the tenant for two years before he or she qualifies as a successor. Amendment No. 76 restricts that to six months only in cases that arise immediately before the Bill comes into effect. Apart from that, until the legislation is repealed or drastically amended, as it must be, two years will be the rule. That will cause a special problem for members of a family who may make great sacrifices so as to move in with an elderly or infirm relative and care for him. If the tenant does not survive for the full two years such a caring member of a family could find himself made homeless, for his pains, on the death of the tenant. The Lords amendment is no worse than the original drafting, so we shall not vote against it, but I fear that this aspect of the Bill will lead to rough justice, and I undertake to review it at the earliest opportunity.

§ Mrs. Fyfe
A constituent of mine gave up her home to go and care for an elderly relative. In this highly unusual case, when the elderly relative died my constituent then 375 went to care for a sick and dying brother. She spent a considerable time away from her home and ended up losing it. What would happen to such a person under this legislation? She did not spend as much as two years with either person, yet had spent much time away from her home. She would lose her home and not gain the tenancy of her parent's or brother's homes.
My constituent had no work. She is too old to find work and lives on social security. In Glasgow's housing crisis she is at the tail end of a long waiting list. Has the Minister thought through the sort of cases that will occur in real life? Conservative Members must know from their surgeries that things like this happen. I can understand efforts being made to prevent people from jumping in cynically at the last minute by going to live with a sick and elderly relative in the hopes of succeeding to the tenancy, but two years is far too long. People may go for as little as six months in a genuine effort to care for an elderly relative and then have no right to succeed to the tenancy. That is wrong.
The Government have made great play of care in the community, of driving elderly people out of hospitals and into the community. That has meant that women with low-paid jobs or no jobs at all lose their homes. That cannot be the intention even of this Government. Surely they do not want to throw on to the streets women who have devoted years of their lives to caring for others.

§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
Opposition Members have raised the same points as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) in Committee.
When we introduced the Bill we pointed out that as things stand a landlord can find a property that he lets the subject of a series of successions which put the house out of his reach for generations. Extensive succession rights will not apply to assured tenancies and the Government believe that succession rights in regulated tenancies should also be restricted. In our original proposals for succession in regulated tenancies we envisaged that a relative of a tenant other than a spouse would have to live with the tenant for five years before the tenant's death before he or she would qualify as a successor. That would also be one of the conditions that would have to be fulfilled if a second succession was to occur.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Dundee, East and organisations involved in housing matters argued strongly that five years was too long and should be reduced, and on reflection the Government agreed. Consequently, two major changes to the succession rules were made.
First, on Report, the five-year requirement was reduced to two years. Secondly, as well as making the provisions easier to understand, Lords amendments Nos. 38, 39, 76 and 83 introduced transitional provisions to protect the position of prospective successors who, on the death of a tenant after commencement, would not meet the two-year qualifying period, but through residence before commencement would have met the six-month qualifying period that existed then.
The Government believe the changes have improved the Bill and strike a fair balance between the interests of landlords and tenants.