§ Mr. Conwayasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received alleging that some county councils are taking actions aimed at pre-empting rights for tenants to be enacted in the Housing and Building Control Bill; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. GowThe Housing and Building Control Bill proposes to extend security of tenure and the right to buy to certain county council tenants. I am aware of reports that tenancies are being terminated in order to frustrate the intentions of the Bill.
County council tenants of residential premises who have periodic tenancies have no long-term security of tenure under existing legislation. Under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, a notice to quit such premises must be in writing and must be given at least four weeks before it is to take effect. The Act also contains provisions relating to harassment and eviction without a court order. But, beyond those basic protections, such tenants must look to the terms of their tenancies to establish what rights they have—if any—to stay in their present homes.
County councils are currently in a position to terminate many of their tenancies at a month's notice. That will remain the position until the Housing and Building Control Bill comes into effect. A tenancy which is terminated before the Bill takes effect will not be subject to its provisions.
It follows that county councils are in some cases able to frustrate the purposes of the proposed new legislation. The decisions are for them to take under the law as it stands. I consider it indefensible for any public authority to take steps against individuals and families to deprive them of rights which both Houses have concluded that they should have. The Bill makes provision for certain tenancies to be excepted from security of tenure. These exceptions have been considered by both Houses of Parliament. Parliament has decided on a balance between the reasonable expectations of tenants and the need for county councils to retain control of housing needed for operational purposes. There may be some cases in which it may be appropriate for a county council to adjust its tenancy arrangements in the light of the detailed provisions in the Bill. But I deplore any steps which are taken by county councils to deprive tenants of their prospective right to buy, for that purpose alone.
I regard it as particularly indefensible if any tenant were to be evicted from a dwelling which is surplus to 181W operational requirement simply so that that dwelling might be sold in the open market with vacant possession at a higher price. County councils currently have discretion to sell surplus housing to sitting tenants at a discount and we have encouraged them to do so. Of course county councils have a duty to their ratepayers. But they have important responsibilities towards their tenants also.
Under the Bill a secure tenant will normally have the right to buy at a discounty. But the cost-floor rules provide that the discount cannot reduce the sale price below the basic costs of provision. So there is no question of the ratepayer being expected to subsidise discounted sales at less than historic costs.