Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I was not aware that the new clause had been awaited with such breathless expectancy. I am overwhelmed by the enthusiasm for it. It is an important clause, which builds on an element of the 1996 legislation that I piloted through the House—the assured shorthold tenancy. It also builds on the Government's housing Green Paper and on the social exclusion unit's work on unpopular housing. I hope that we can establish at the beginning that the measure is designed to make use of housing that might otherwise not be used. It is also designed to assist in housing people and to contribute to the maintenance of neighbourhoods that would otherwise become run-down, leading to degeneration. Those are the purposes of the clause, and I emphasise that the housing that would be provided would be available to those who come under the social needs category.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Bath back in the Room. because it would have been soul-destroying for him if, after his heroic sacrifice of time, he had not been able to hear what I have to say. Knowing what an ecumenical chap he is, I am sure that he would have found that difficult to bear. I am grateful to him for not moving his new clause, as that enabled us to reach this point.

The purpose of new clause 18 is simply to create a short-term tenancy to allow property to be used temporarily when it would otherwise remain empty. That is the top and bottom of it. It builds on the Green Paper and on the exclusion unit's concerns about undesirable property. It attempts to find a use for property and in doing so to help to sustain neighbourhoods that might otherwise degenerate as the number of empty properties increases.

The housing Green Paper foreshadows the provision. The problem with current legislation is that it makes it difficult for councils to offer short-term and unlicensed property and practically impossible to offer self-contained property—there are limited conditions in the Housing Act 1985—without creating a secure tenancy after 12 months. Once a secure tenancy has been created, various rights are established, including the right to buy, as well as liabilities. Local authorities may find themselves with serviceable stock that they cannot use. I want to provide a way to enable them to use it.

There may be large-scale regeneration projects and local authorities throughout the country, especially in some northern cities, are in the process of demolishing surplus stock. The demographic trend of tenants is such that councils find themselves with more empty stock and part of the answer is to demolish it. That applies in Liverpool, Sheffield, Newcastle and other great metropolitan authorities, but London and some other areas are entirely different. The problem exists across a wide swathe of large metropolitan councils. Many projects take five or 10 years and demolition will gradually reduce the level of stock in the long term.

If vacancies arises in those properties because regeneration is planned and people have been decanted, the council cannot afford to let them on secure tenancies because they might incur considerable financial liabilities in doing so—it is barmy to repair property that is due to be knocked down—or be unable to secure the premises when they want to demolish the properties. A short-term tenancy would enable councils to use such property a number of times for long-term temporary accommodation for statutory or non-statutory homeless or potentially homeless households until the property is needed for redevelopment. It would certainly provide better accommodation than bed and breakfast or just dossing down, which is often the alternative.

Another potential benefit is the creation of sustainable communities. I do not wish to invoke Lord Rogers too frequently, but current wisdom is for mixed communities and mixed tenures. We know that vital groups of workers find it difficult to find accommodation and the measure might bring the two together. People who do not qualify for support under the homelessness legislation could be given short-term tenancies. They could occupy accommodation and generate an income, which would help the local neighbourhood in terms of a market for services, shops, hairdressing, bus routes, schools and so on, before entering the housing marketplace if that is what they want to do. That would contribute to the sustainability of the community.

Finally, the measure would generate income for the local authority, which would have a rent stream rather than a boarded-up, empty property. We all know that an empty property, as with an empty shop in a town centre, is a debilitating feature of the landscape and damages the whole viability of the community, whether a business or social community. The provision would help to deal with that problem.

I would expect the short social tenancy to be used in well-defined circumstances. It is not intended as a replacement for normal secure tenancies and it is not the same as a single secure tenancy for social housing, to which the Minister is attached and which was one of the main outcomes of the consultation on the Green Paper. However, it would give councils the equivalent of the assured shorthold tenancy and could be regulated in much the same way.

I do not expect the Minister to declare that the new clause is technically perfect in all aspects—he has parliamentary counsel to do the job for him—but I hope that he will agree that the spirit of the amendment is consistent with the Bill and what is, in many respects, a consensual policy on homelessness, inner cities and regeneration. It flows from the 1996 Act for which I was responsible and from actions for which the hon. Gentleman is responsible as Minister for Housing and Planning.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, who was formerly a Housing Minister, has much experience in the matter. His proposal is most interesting, and follows lines that we are considering. It was one of the recommendations of the policy action team investigating the problem of unpopular housing and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it was proposed in the Green Paper on housing, which received a positive response in consultation.

The provision would, in defined circumstances, enable a local housing authority to make an allocation that is not a secure tenancy. For example, that might be appropriate where house prices were not affordable to modestly paid key workers, who could be offered a short-term tenancy to enable them to save for a deposit or to establish roots in the area prior to buying a house. It would be possible, too, for similar arrangements to be used as a weapon in low-demand areas where there is unpopular housing. An authority might want to offer short-term tenancies in anticipation of the eventual redevelopment of an area, or to attract to a locality people who would not normally live there but who would bring greater economic prosperity.

As the right hon. Gentleman correctly anticipated, we are attracted to the principles underlying the proposal but we cannot accept it as it would add to the existing complexity of the tenure structure. We do not want to do that without considering the full panoply of housing legislation that relates to tenancies in the public sector and those that affect registered social and other landlords. The hon. Member for Eastbourne is not enamoured of the word ``holistic'' so I shall say that the issue must be considered in the round.

It may be possible to bring together the principal tenancies offered by registered social landlords and local authorities into a single tenure for the social housing sector. It would be sensible to do that as a considered and comprehensive package, rather than by introducing one step now and having to make subsequent alterations and amendments.

The proposal is welcome and we support its intention. We will further consider how it can be advanced in the context of other tenures to ensure that the right, long-term mix of tenures is available. On that basis, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the new clause.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

I anticipated the Minister's words but I want to query the need to

``consider the full panoply of housing legislation''.

That does not sound susceptible to amendment in another place, nor is it susceptible to legislation within an immediate time scale.

The Minister referred to what could best be described as the codification of tenancy, which would be a helpful tool for regeneration, and to allowing people to find a first foot on the housing ladder in areas where housing is scarce or to help community building where housing is over-plentiful. It would therefore be a pity to wait for a future Bill, under whichever Government's auspices, which may have no immediate prospect of consideration.

I shall withdraw the new clause, because I realise that the geo-political forces are weighed against me. However I hope that the Minister will say when

``the full panoply of housing legislation''

might fall to the attention of whoever has the portfolio. That would provide a little reassurance and the Minister could reflect on returning to the idea later in the Bill. The blurred outline might just take on a few thinly traced shapes for later consideration.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that

``the full panoply of housing legislation''

is uppermost in my mind. As I said, we have to consider all the various strands in the complex pattern rather than legislate immediately. I cannot provide assurance about amendments in another place or later in the passage of the Bill, but the idea is on the agenda for Government action within the reasonably near future.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

I have two reflections. One is that ``reasonably'' is a wonderfully accommodating word: we cannot define it because it would then lose its wonderfully accommodating nature. Secondly, I recall the Minister wanting to deal urgently with the licensing of houses in multiple occupation and with commonhold five years ago at the time of the 1996 Act, but those elements of the panoply have not been pulled together with the urgency anticipated at the time of the Minister's utterances.

I shall not press the new clause to the vote. The Minister has said that legislation will occur at some stage if he is still the Minister with responsibility for housing—it is rather like the second coming. We all hope that it will happen in the end and that we shall be on the right side of it when it does. It may fall to others to implement the necessary measures. We have had a useful debate and we have all agreed that it would be a jolly good idea if anyone gets round to it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. We are approaching the end of our proceedings, so I want to make the few remarks that are customary when we are not so pressured to finish at a particular time.

We have had three extremely useful and productive weeks—mercifully short by comparison with my experience of previous Committees, which went on for months rather than weeks. Our debates have been intensive and productive. We have ranged over several important issues that affect virtually every member of our society—home owners, prospective home owners, people seeking accommodation through a local authority or registered social landlord, people exposed to the miseries of homelessness or racial harassment and so forth.

We have ranged wide geographically. We have had a brief excursion in the Yorkshire dales, visiting the cat-loving cottagers who are the neighbours of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. We have discovered that some members of the Committee have extraordinary connections with Bradford, and we eventually reached the faded splendours of the south coast. I also noticed that the right hon. Gentleman used his time productively to make a small paper boat—perhaps to evoke the delights of south-coast resorts such as Eastbourne.

We have considered a significant number of amendments with varying impacts and we have incorporated a number of changes into the Bill. That is exactly what a Committee should do—scrutinise a Bill and make it better. A number of those changes have resulted from specific points and concerns raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I am extremely grateful to them for the way in which they have tabled their amendments and contributed constructively to the process of improving the Bill.

I am also grateful to the various bodies that advised us and gave us the benefit of their experience on a range of housing issues. I should like to thank all members of the Committee for the constructive and good-humoured tenor of our proceedings. In particular, I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who started the Committee as a Whip and now joins me as a Minister; my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), his successor as Whip, who has ensured that we completed our proceedings on time; and my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope), who has to carry out the generally thankless task of a Parliamentary Private Secretary, which he has done with his customary skill and enthusiasm.

I should like to extend my thanks to all the officials who have helped enormously with the preparations of briefs and information, to the police who have ensured our security, to the Hansard staff who, as always, have provided an extraordinarily accurate representation of our remarks, including language from the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon that I am sure has appeared in Hansard for the first time. I should like to thank the Clerk for advising you, Mr. Stevenson, and Mr. Gale, your co-Chairman, in such a way as to ensure the expeditious handling of our proceedings. Above all, I should like to thank you, and Mr. Gale in his absence, for the way in which you have presided over the Committee.

This has been a good-natured Committee. It has dealt with difficult and sometimes controversial issues in a constructive and good-humoured style. That owes an enormous amount to the way in which the Committee has been chaired. You, Mr. Stevenson, and your co-Chairman Mr. Gale, have enlivened us with some humorous insight. You have always made sure that we kept strictly in order. You have not allowed us to stray too far into the unforeseen byways of political controversy and you have kept a good pace that has ensured that we shall complete our proceedings on time. I am grateful to you and I hope that you have an enjoyable weekend's rest after three weeks of arduous activity in this Committee.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I associate myself with almost everything that the Minister has said. I should like to be able to ascribe to you and your co-Chairman the fact that we are finishing at five o'clock today, but it has nothing to do with either of you. It is the programme resolution.

On the whole, we have had a good-natured Committee, even if we have moved at a brisk pace at bayonet point. I thank you and your co-Chairman for your kind, indulgent and efficient chairing of our proceedings, Mr. Stevenson. I should also like to thank the officials, the staff and all those who make our proceedings run relatively smoothly, the Hansard writers and so on. I should like to thank all the members of the Committee. Just about every member has contributed to the proceedings, some more than others. I should particularly like to thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for their hard work on the Committee. The Minister referred to the model boat that my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon made. The Minister should have a care, as that is just the sort of example of the long-term therapy that most Housing Ministers engage in after any time in that thankless office. I also thank those who provided helpful briefings and draft amendments.

It has been an exciting Committee at times, despite an unprepossessing start, as it were. We had the alarums and excursions of the new heir to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). We have discovered some interesting facts. For example, as a child, the Minister spent some time living in a caravan in Bradford, but that was under a previous Labour Government, so we should not be surprised.

Even in this relatively peaceful and quiet backwater, the ripples of great events have sometimes been felt. In Committee, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East was deservedly promoted from Whip to a ministerial post. The hon. Member for Doncaster, North became the Whip, and we welcome that. All that happened as a result of the understandable wish of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) to leave public office and spend more time with his lawyers.

I thank everyone concerned, particularly you, Mr. Stevenson, and your co-Chairman, for a generally harmonious Committee.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I associate myself with the remarks that have been made and the thanks offered to so many people.

I was interested in the comments by the hon. Member for Eastbourne and the Minister about the boat constructed by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. It was suggested that it was a form of therapy. I am in a somewhat privileged position, because I can see the therapy involving paper that is required by Whips. Committee Members might like to have a look later, but I can assure them that the therapy for the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who is the Opposition Whip, is to turn himself into a human paper shredder.

As right hon. and hon. Members have said, we have had an important three weeks discussing the Bill. Despite the occasional curmudgeonly outburst from the hon. Member for Eastbourne, this has been a Committee of great good humour, which has at the same time addressed serious points. As I said, we have truly demonstrated the value of Committee work and of the high-quality briefings that are provided for us by various organisations.

The Government have not sought to railroad every proposition in the Bill. There has been some willingness to listen and to take on board the ideas expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. We should be grateful for that and for the evidence that we have given of the benefit of the parliamentary process. Sadly, however, the Government have not accepted as many amendments as we would have liked, so I am particularly looking forward to the next stage of our deliberations, next Wednesday.

I thank you, Mr. Stevenson, and your fellow Chairman, Mr. Gale, for the helpful way in which you have chaired the Committee.

Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)

The paper boat constructed by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon speaks volumes for his tenacity. Given that he spent a number of years in the European Parliament, was a member of the previous Government, is a former Housing Minister and is now in opposition, I am surprised that his hands were steady enough to put the boat together.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I am happy to present the boat to you.

Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)

On behalf of my co-Chairman and myself, I thank every member of the Committee, the Clerks, the Hansard writers, the police and the Ushers of the House for their patience and forbearance. I now have the pleasure of announcing that the Committee's business has concluded.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at two minutes to Five o'clock.