LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 19 November 1976)

§ Baroness BIRK
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 45, to which the Commons have disagreed, but agree to Commons Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 in lieu thereof. This is the Amendment that deals with the provision for temporary accommodation. We have always made it clear that it would be no real improvement on the present situation if the statutory tenant whose cottage was needed by the farmer could be obliged to go into any form of temporary accommodation such as bed and breakfast or a hostel, perhaps for an indefinite period until the housing authority had long-term accommodation for him. Our previous discussions drew attention to the fact that when suitable—and I stress the word "suitable"—alternative accommodation is offered by a housing authority who are under an obligation under the Bill, there is nothing explicit in the Bill to indicate that it should be of a permanent nature. This provision may prove not to be used a great deal since most accommodation available to an authority which meets the conditions laid down in the Schedule will be permanent, but there may be some occasions when a housing authority can offer accommodation which does meet all the requirements of suitability, but the authority know that it will not necessarily be available indefinitely; for example, it may have been leased from a private landlord under arrangements like the North Wilts scheme. There is nothing in the Bill or in the Rent Act to suggest that an offer of such accommodation could not be regarded as suitable simply because of the limited period of time, provided that it was followed up by accommodation which also met all the requirements.
In order to clarify what is already in the Bill and thereby to avoid any unnecessary disputes in court when such accommodation may he offered, we have tabled the two clarifying. Amendments in lieu of Amendment No. 45. These make it clear than an offer of suitable temporary accommodation is not ruled out, but that 1642 it must be accompanied by a firm undertaking in writing to provide as soon as is practicable accommodation of a permanent nature which also meets all the requirements of suitability. These Amendments are not a significant change in the Bill; instead, they spell out something which is there already. They clarify the Bill and should allay many of the anxieties that were expressed during consideration of the Bill.
I must point out that, if a tenant felt that it was unreasonable for him to move into alternative accommodation for a relatively short period of time he would be free to argue that it was not reasonable for him to be moved from his farm cottage until a more permanent offer was forth-coming from the authority. This is because this Case in Schedule 3 is subject to Clause 8 which requires that, in this part of the Schedule, the court may only make an order if it thinks it reasonable to do so. I am sure that noble Lords will agree not to insist on Amendment No. 45 and to substitute instead the two Amendments Nos. 46 and 47.

§ Lord SANDYS
My Lords, While I regret that on an earlier Amendment—No. 33 —which related to caravans the Government could not support your Lordships' Amendment regarding that leg of temporary accommodation, we should like to thank the noble Baroness for the care and trouble that she has taken to follow up our arguments on this aspect and further to investigate the situation in detail and produce the solution that the Government have found. We have had only a relatively brief period in which to examine the Commons Amendments and a number of questions arise upon them. First, as regards the type of accommodation that the Government envisage, do they envisage a mobile home as satisfying these particular qualifications? Do they envisage hostel accommodation? Do they envisage accommodation which is perhaps not entirely satisfactory so far as all the fittings are concerned up to a standard that is acceptable? Or have the Government another situation in mind? I feel that the Government's proposal in these two Amendments as an alternative to 1643 Amendment No. 45 will take us quite a long way, but I should like to listen with care to the noble Baroness's reply.

§ Baroness BIRK
Very briefly, my Lords, the criteria are those set out in the Bill. If the temporary accommodation fits in with the tenant's place of work and is right so far as size and rent are concerned it will be considered suitable. The noble Lord is very well aware of the provisions so I need not list the requirements. The noble Lord asked about a mobile home. Yes, if that answered the other criteria it would be considered a suitable type of accommodation. As regards hostels, I should have thought that the answer would be, No, because there is no protection there. The suitability is exactly as it is spelt out in the Bill.

§ Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY
My Lords, I have one question to ask the noble Baroness. She said that the tenant could refuse to accept the accommodation. What extra argument could the tenant put forward for not accepting this type of accommodation? Is it different from what is already stated in the Bill? Finally, I should like to say how grateful we are to the noble Baroness for taking all this trouble. I am sorry to take a little time, but this is good for her. I noticed that the noble Baroness was almost in tears the other day when she had to say, No, to us.
I shall embarrass the noble Baroness further by reminding her that I almost made her blush over what farmers thought about "best endeavours". This time I will embarrass her by saying how nice we think she is and how kind she has been to take all the trouble she has taken, with my noble friends on the Front Bench, to look at this again. I hope that in future she will not be completely wedded to the Department of the Environment, that she will cling very tightly to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, and that she will listen, as she has done over the past three weeks during which we have discussed this matter, very carefully to the agricultural arguments. She so obviously has done.

§ Baroness BIRK
My Lords, it is always a very great pleasure to me to cling very tightly to my noble friend. I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, for his very kind remark. The point which the noble Lord made was that a worker 1644 could argue that it was not reasonable for him to be moved from his farm cottage if it was likely to be for a short time or if he was told, "We can put you here for a time, but in another few months you may have to be moved somewhere else". This would be an argument on the basis that it was not reasonable to be moved. So far as suitability is concerned, as 1 explained previously, this is covered in the Bill, and if it was attempted to persuade the worker to take accommodation which was not suitable, he would have recourse to the courts. But the question of the unreasonable aspect of the matter would depend on the circumstances under which he was asked to move.