Clause 165 - Succession to certain tenancies by same sex partners
Housing Bill
3:15 pm

Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 441, in

clause 165, page 117, line 10, at end insert—

'(2A) For the purposes of this paragraph, a sibling shall be treated in the same way as the original tenant's spouse if the sibling was living with the original tenant.'.

The amendment seeks to do something that I believe was mentioned by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) on Second Reading. He was right to raise the issue with which it deals. In line with other legislation now under consideration, the Bill seeks to include in the terms of tenancies arrangements for the succession rights of unmarried couples, whether they are of the same sex or different sexes.

Another set of circumstances is that of elderly people of the generation that found after the second world war that there were not enough men to go round, and in which unmarried sisters therefore took to living together. This is a generational matter; I know of a number of cases in my constituency of elderly sisters who have lived together for many years. In some cases, they are joint tenants, so the problem will not arise, but in others one of them is the tenant and the other has merely been living with them. There could be brothers in that situation as well, but my experience is that it more often involves sisters.

The object of the amendment is to ensure that there is no discrimination between such relationships and those of a sexual nature. The wording of the Bill seems to suggest that one has rights so long as one is having sex with somebody. The amendment seeks to extend those rights to people who are not in a sexual relationship but have clearly been living together in a sibling relationship for a considerable time. I am glad that the hon. Member for Worthing, West raised the matter; I might not have tabled the amendment if I had not been prompted by his words on Second Reading. I am sure that the Government will consider the issue,

and I suspect that the amendment is not the best way of dealing with it, as the wording is not very good. The Minister will probably tell me—

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

I accept that the hon. Gentleman did not have an expert to advise him on how to draft the amendment, but I am anxious to get at what he is proposing. Would he propose a qualifying period for the sibling who remains when her sister dies, to use his example? Is he saying that so long as the sibling is living in the property at that moment, she should have full rights? Or is he proposing, as I suspect he should, that there should at least be a qualification requiring that the sibling should have been living in the property for a year or some other period?

Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I have not tried to write all the detail into the measure; I am trying to get the Government to do that—[Interruption.] Yes, perhaps it could be done through regulations. I agree that the detail needs to be fleshed out, but I am using this opportunity to raise the matter again so that the Minister, who gave a sympathetic response on Second Reading and acknowledged that this was an issue, has the chance to return to it with a properly drafted amendment. Such an amendment might propose enabling regulations to deal with the problem. It would be remiss of the Committee to fail to take the opportunity to deal with it.

Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe, Labour)

First, may I say that I am very supportive of the clause? I spoke in favour of a similar measure many years ago when I served on another Committee considering a housing Bill. On that occasion, although the issue was raised and an amendment was tabled, the Government of the day unfortunately rejected the proposal.

I also have quite a bit of sympathy with the specific point raised by the hon. Member for Ludlow. I have experienced exactly the same situation, again with two sisters, as it happens, who live in a property and feel uncertainty no matter what letters they get from the local authority saying, ''It'll be alright if one of you dies.'' Sometimes, it is not very reassuring if someone does not have the force of law behind them.

I wonder whether the Government might at some point look comprehensively at the issue of succession to see whether it needs sorting out, as anomalies are still around. Another such situation involves the child of a tenant who has lived in the family home all their life and has never moved out. When such a child's parents die, they might suddenly find—by then, they could be in their 50s or 60s—that they do not have a right to succeed. Again, we had a debate on that issue during consideration of a previous housing Bill, and it was clear that there were quite a few anomalies.

As I understand it, if someone has lived with their parents for their whole life, they may have the right to succeed in certain circumstances. It was previously common for only the man to be named on the tenancy agreement, and for the wife not to be named as a tenant. If the wife died first and the man remained a

tenant but then died, the child living with him had a right to succeed, because that would be a first succession. However, if as often happened, the man was a tenant and died first, the first succession went to the wife; that was automatic. When the wife died and left a child, however, the child was in second succession and so did not have the right to succeed in law. That is a complete anomaly.

I know that we can also throw up the issue of under-occupancy. The person in question might well have a three-bedroomed house, and there might be a shortage of such properties. However, it must be anomalous that whether the child can succeed depends on whether their mother or father died first. That is the law as it stands at present, and it is complete nonsense.

I know that, when the matter was previously considered, the then Minister with responsibility for housing, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), issued guidance to local authorities saying that they should exercise discretion in such circumstances and look closely at the possibility of awarding succession. The guidance also advised that that should be made clear to people in advance to relieve any stress that they might feel about the possibility of losing their family home once their parents had died.

However, that was only guidance, and it is not applied in all cases. Many local authorities do not even know that it exists. It has been filed away in some dark corner since the 1960s and forgotten, and it is not applied in practice. Certainly, when people come to inquire at the local housing office desk, the staff look at the rules and see that they do not contain such advice. They decide that the issue is something for the policy wonks up in head office to look at and do not give the correct advice there and then to the people who have come to seek it.

The issue raises many problems. I hope that the Minister will agree at least to conduct a review of the succession issue to see whether we can sort out some of the anomalies, because they are serious problems for people sitting in a home in which they have lived for an awful long time. Such people will regard where they live as their home and worry that it may not remain their home when the tenant dies.

Mr Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I support the hon. Gentleman's remarks 100 per cent. I recently had a constituency case in which the ''no two succession'' rule, which is what he is talking about, came into play. The case involved a gentleman in his 50s who had lived for, I think, 40 years in a property with his parents—exactly the situation that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The man's father had been the original tenant. His father died first and his mother succeeded to the tenancy. That was the first succession, so he had no right to stay in the property.

Perhaps the one area that we could look at—the hon. Gentleman also raised it—is cases in which the son or daughter lived in a very large property while there was great housing need in the area. In such cases, perhaps the local housing authority should have discretion to see whether it can find a suitable property

in the same area, but with fewer bedrooms, in order to free up the original property for a family that needs more bedrooms.

None the less, the hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise the issue. He has done the Committee a service, and I very much hope that the Minister will take the point on board and seriously consider tabling an amendment before the end of our proceedings.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)

The points made by the hon. Member for Ludlow and proposed in the amendment seem well made. The problem with the clause is that it excludes people in partnerships that are not akin to marriage. Indeed, the Bill talks about partnerships in precisely those terms. That not only raises the issue of siblings, as he said, but highlights the real problem with succession in respect of adult children.

Most of us will have experienced constituency cases of the kind to which my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire referred. I am not prone to personal anecdotes, although it has become rather common to tell them in this Committee, but during my idyllic childhood growing up on a council estate in the golden age, my neighbours found themselves in precisely the circumstances that my hon. Friend described. A woman who lived with her elderly father until he died could not secure the tenancy of their council house for precisely the reasons described by both hon. Members who have spoken.

The clause is imperfect, and the amendment is not wide enough to deal with all the issues. It goes some way to addressing them by focusing on siblings but, as has been pointed out, the problem goes wider than that. It extends, for example, to elderly people living together as friends in a relationship that is not a marriage. Two elderly gentlemen or ladies who are living together but who do not claim in any sense to be married and do not want to make that claim would be peculiarly disadvantaged. I acknowledge that these are complex and difficult issues, not least of definition, but we deserve some explanation.

The hon. Member for Ludlow usually plays the fuddled fiddle in the muddled middle. I believe that Aneurin Bevan said that of J.B. Priestley, but the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. However, the hon. Gentleman is rather less fuddled and muddled than usual, and so, possibly for the first time in all our deliberations, I can say, with appropriate solemnity, that I enthusiastically support his amendment.

Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)

I agree with my hon. Friend and the hon. Members for Ludlow and for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts): the clause is too narrow. There are many other deserving cases, which is why we have a problem with the provision and why we will vote for the amendment if it is pressed to a vote. Imperfect though it is, we want to make it clear that we believe that there should be a proper review of the way in which tenancies are handled.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

The amendment would extend to siblings who are living together the same succession rights as those reserved for spouses, but only for Rent Act

tenancies. I remind the Committee that, in the case of secure and introductory tenancies, siblings already have succession rights if they resided with the tenant for 12 months preceding the tenant's death. In the case of Rent Act tenancies, siblings have succession rights if they resided with the tenant for two years preceding the tenant's death. The amendment would remove the need for a sibling to establish that they resided with the tenant for a set period before the tenant's death. Going down that path could open the doors to all siblings living with tenants, however transitorily, if they happened to be residing in the property when the tenant died.

Siblings may live with each other for many reasons, whereas spouses and life partners live together because they intend to make their home together. It is right and proper to give succession rights to siblings who have resided in the property for some time, as there is evidence that they have made a home with the tenant. It is difficult to argue the same for siblings who do not meet that test of residence. The problem is that if the net is drawn too widely, or if there are insufficient safeguards, landlords will rarely get their property back after the course of one person's lifetime, and will regularly have to wait for two lifetimes to pass before doing so. In addition, if siblings are given succession rights that are similar to spouses, why not give such rights to cousins, or more distant relatives, or friends, or anyone else who shares accommodation? They may well be dependent on each other and share their home for a lengthy period. Why stop at siblings?

We cannot legislate for every possible permutation of living arrangement. The line has to be drawn somewhere. The most distinctive line is between committed partnerships, where there is a clear intention for the parties to form a home together, and all other relationships.

Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster, Conservative)

Although I class myself as being on the socially liberal wing of my party, I acknowledge that there is a measure of logic in saying that the one commitment is the commitment of marriage, and that that is therefore a logical dividing line when dealing with tenancies; there can be no doubt about that relationship. However, Conservative members of the Committee feel that the clause does not go anything like far enough. There might be uncertainty and the amendment would open the way to abuse—the Minister is right about—but I implore him to look further at the clause to try to find some form of words that takes account of the arguments made by my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Ludlow.

I fear that it is not logical to say that the line is drawn where it is for the purposes of certainty. Certainty would suggest either marriage or some other legal contract as the defining point. I would regard that as far too narrow, but so are the current arrangements, and I would like a much broader expansion. I hope that the Minister will give the measure serious consideration, if not necessarily in the course of this debate, at least before Report and Third Reading.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's observations, and I am not unsympathetic to the underlying concern that informs them and which I think is generally shared within the Committee. In this Committee, we have not only the progressive party of politics and the party in the middle, but—with people such as the hon. Gentleman present—a singularly socially liberal group of Conservative Members of Parliament.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)

Let me make clear that I have not got a socially liberal bone in my body. My colleagues can speak for themselves, but I know that at least one or two of them would be close to that position.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

Well, four socially liberal Conservatives and one compassionate Conservative.

I understand the argument and I want to say something more about our possible longer-term approach on these matters. I maintain that the line must be drawn somewhere and that the most distinctive line is between committed partnerships, where there is a clear intention for the parties to form a home together, and all other relationships. The Government believe that siblings generally do not have a case for being recognised on the same basis as a couple. They already have a legally recognised relationship and their rights reflect that relationship.

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe raised the issue of adult children who may not be able to succeed to the tenancies of their home, even though they have known no other. Each of us, as a constituency MP, has come across those tragic cases on more than one occasion in our advice surgeries. Let me state the Government's stance on the matter, and again, as in my response to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), say something about a longer-term approach.

Children might not be able to succeed to the tenancies of their homes because, as my hon. Friend knows, it is at the landlord's discretion whether to grant further successions than those stipulated in the legislation. The fact is that landlord's stock may be subject to heavy demand, and the surviving child might not have as great a housing need as others. It might be that the child is left as the sole occupant of a family home, which could house another entire family as it once housed the child's. The landlord, although not granting the child a further succession, may offer them alternative, smaller, accommodation.

Such a situation can be a source of enormous upset when it arises, especially when the parents held a joint tenancy, one has died and the child has not realised that the remaining parent had succeeded to the tenancy—thus exhausting the right of succession. My hon. Friend alluded to Government guidance on that area. That recommends that housing authorities consider granting a tenancy to the remaining person or persons either in the same home or in suitable alternative accommodation, provided that the allocation has no adverse implications for the good use of the housing stock and has sufficient priority under the allocation scheme.

My experience as a Member of Parliament for a constituency covering an extremely hard-pressed inner-London authority is that authorities generally try to act with a degree of sympathy towards the tenant in such a situation. Other offers are made, but the trouble is that if someone has lived in a particular place all their life, they consider it their home and they are understandably reluctant to move to smaller accommodation in a different, perhaps less salubrious, area. However, the authority is between a rock and a hard place. There is desperate housing demand in London and other major cities, and that demand must be addressed. The under-occupancy rate in council housing stock is already sizeable—the figure is about 8 or 9 per cent. in London—so it is clear that there are strong pressures on local authorities.

I agree that inequalities in legislation should be addressed. That is why we are amending the provisions on the rules for succession to tenancies so that they will apply to same-sex couples. I do not want to belittle the work of making further amendments, as the hon. Members for Ludlow and for South-West Bedfordshire suggested, to address inequality, but there is a difference. The provisions on same-sex couples that I mentioned are in direct response to a specific recommendation from the Select Committee and in furtherance of a Government commitment in the housing Green Paper.

The Bill is already very long. Although it could be argued that the amendment falls within its scope, to agree to it would lead to the argument that we should take the opportunity to amend all other housing legislation that contains the same inequality, which would add considerably to the length of the Bill. And why stop here? Why not do something about the inequalities in all other legislation?

Mr Edward Davey (Shadow Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister may have a point. The Bill is long, and we hope that it will be made longer by our adding some new clauses. However, the Government have proposed a civil partnerships Bill, which will address one particular area. Will the Minister consult his ministerial colleagues to see whether the issue could be debated and dealt with in the context of that Bill, which is taking in overarching aspects of the rights of same-sex couples?

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

I appreciate the constructive nature of that proposal, but I doubt whether there will be an opportunity for innovative legislation to be included in a Bill that is about to start its passage through the House. It seems more appropriate to carry out a separate exercise to address all issues of inequality in housing. We are expecting the draft tenure review Bill from the Law Commission later this year, and if we are inclined to follow the legislative route, that might provide such an opportunity.

There is a separate issue of discrimination between the position of spouses and unmarried couples, which occurs throughout the statute book. The difference in treatment is not always consistent and is often the result of historical accident. Given that there are inequalities between same-sex partners, different-sex

partners and married people throughout legislation, the Government may want to consider the appropriateness of a Government-wide equalities Bill to take the issue forward. That would be a large piece of work and something that we would have to consider carefully.

I hope that I have demonstrated to the Committee open-mindedness and a recognition of the issues. However, I am not in any position to make commitments at this stage. I have tried to answer all the points made by hon. Members as comprehensively and sympathetically as possible, and I hope that, considering that, the hon. Member for Ludlow will withdraw the amendment.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)

I rise to make a brief point. I did not intervene on the Minister to make it, as he was making a measured, closely worded and considered response. However, there is a second issue: the clause does not only disadvantage siblings and adult children. I acknowledge what he said about time frames of residence, but the provision also disadvantages same-sex couples who are not

''in a relationship equivalent to that of husband and wife.''

There will be same-sex couples—such as elderly widows or widowers, or elderly spinsters or bachelors—who are not in a relationship equivalent to a marriage. They are of the same sex, but not in that kind of relationship. It would be wrong if two elderly spinsters had to pretend that they were in a kind of marriage in order to benefit from the Bill's provisions. It does not even deal reasonably with same-sex couples. There are even more profound problems with the clause, which the amendment would go some way to address. I am grateful for the Minister's tolerance and open-mindedness, but there are very profound worries about the clause.

Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe, Labour)

The clause does not disadvantage anybody: it removes an anomaly and a piece of discrimination that has existed for too long. What it does not do is remove every other anomaly in the rules on succession. Some of those have been referred to in the debate, and I thank the Minister for his response to them. He went through the pros and cons of some of the issues and indicated that he was prepared to have a wider review then the general consideration of tenure that will result from the Law Commission's work. That is the right way forward: we should support the clause, which removes one anomalous piece of discrimination, then look to the review to deal with the others.

Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I listened to the Minister with some care, and he gave some reassurances, but there are still some questions to be asked. I support clause 165, but its effect is that one group of people will now have fewer rights than others: people who are related to one other closely enough that they cannot by law be in a sexual relationship. After all, cousins—even same-sex cousins—could claim that they were in a sexual relationship.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)

They should not have to.

Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

No, they should not have to, but the legislation would allow them to claim that. However, a brother and sister, or two brothers or two sisters, cannot; sons and daughters, and grandchildren cannot. They are restricted by law from claiming that right. Everybody else, provided that they are adults, can claim that they fit in to one of those circumstances.

Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton North, Labour)

They have to prove it.

Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

After someone has died, proving anything is difficult. The Minister has unintentionally created another anomaly.

The danger of legislating is that as a loophole is closed, an oddity is created. People who are closely related to one another will now have fewer rights than people in every other set of circumstances. The Minister has acknowledged that difficulty. It would be remiss of the Committee if we passed the clause without taking the opportunity of testing the waters. The amendment is imperfect, because it only covers siblings, not children, or grandchildren, or cousins, for the reasons that I have explained.

This is not a point on which we should simply accept the Minister's assurance that it will all be dealt with. It will be helpful if members of the Committee indicate where they stand on the issue. I intend to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 10.

Ms Vera Baird (Redcar, Labour)

I rise to ask for clarification about an issue that has been drawn to my attention primarily by Shelter, which is complicated—at least for me.

Clause 165 gives unmarried and different-sex partners and same-sex partners the same rights, but the kinds of tenants who are referred to in subsections (1) and (3) seem to get different sets of rights, whereas the kinds of tenants referred to in subsections (2) and (4) get an inferior set of rights. Subsection (1) provides that a person will be

''treated as the spouse of the . . . tenant if''

they are living with them as husband or wife, or if they are in a same-sex ''equivalent relationship''. That is a fine and full recognition of the equivalence. The same thing happens in subsection (3), under which someone would be treated as a spouse if they were living as husband or wife, or in a same-sex relationship that is equivalent to that of husband and wife.

Subsection (1) covers a Rent Act tenant and subsection (3) covers an assured tenant. Subsection (2) says that a

'''member of the tenant's family' includes . . . a person who''

is living together as husband and wife with the tenant, or is in an equivalent same-sex relationship. Subsection (2) says that an unmarried partner of either sex is treated as a member of the tenant's family, not as a spouse. Subsection (4) says the same thing. Subsections (2) and (4) cover introductory and secure tenancies. Subsection (4) does not say that ''a person of either sex living together is a spouse'', but that they are just a

'''member of the tenant's family'''.

To succeed in that regard and be treated as a member of the tenant's family, such people must have resided continuously with the tenant for the past 12 months. That puts those who are succeeding under subsections (2) and (4) in a lesser position than that of marrieds and those who succeed under subsections (1) and (3).

To be treated as a

'''member of the tenant's family'''

would also, although I do not know this—I am relying entirely on the briefing—put a deceased partner behind an estranged spouse. That would put the partner on a level with other family members who might have lived there for 12 months, and that might cause difficulties. If there is a clash, the landlord will decide who succeeds, and that might not be satisfactory. Was it the Government's intention to give two categories of rights to the same set of people, contingent on the kind of tenancy that exists?

Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I wish to support the hon. and learned Lady. As eagled-eyed Committee members will have noticed, I was somewhat slow in tabling a couple of amendments along these lines, and we have made such rapid progress today that we will not be able to discuss them as they were rightly starred. I am glad that the hon. and learned Lady raised exactly the point that my two amendments were designed to prompt. The Minister has some explaining to do.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)

It seems to me that the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and the hon. Member for Ludlow hit upon an important point of consistency. I suspect that, in attempting to introduce a provision, sections have been taken from the original Act that do not marry terribly well. I am sure that the Minister will want to assure us that that will be dealt with during the further passage of the Bill.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

I am, as ever, grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar for raising an important matter, which has stimulated an interesting

and energetic—not to say frantic—response on my part. I hope to be able to offer some explanation of the clause's contents.

My hon. and learned Friend raised the point that the civil partnerships Bill will allow same-sex partners to succeed as partners. The issue of tenures and rights is complicated. The existing tenure succession is already different among secure, assured and Rent Act tenancies, and members of families have different rights from spouses in any circumstances. I cannot, of course, pray in aid a visual representation, but I have in my hand a document that sets out succession rights across the three tenancies. There are 14 or 15 variations in tenancy rights within those categories.

There is an argument for regularising the situation. I imagine that that will certainly be one of the purposes of the Law Commission's work on tenure, to which we have referred frequently during our discussions. However, my basic point in connection with same-sex partners, which is the subject and purpose of the clause, is that we have sought to equalise same-sex rights to fit in with the different tenure regimes. That is the clause's purpose, although I fully admit that there may be other issues about wider family rights that have not been addressed in the Bill.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)

I was waiting to see whether the hon. and learned Lady wanted to rise, as I am in anticipation of her further comment.

I am not entirely convinced by the Minister. He suggests that the reason for the disparity between subsections (1) and (3) and subsections (2) and (4) is that they apply to different kinds of tenancies. That seemed to be the implication of what he said. He said that the complexities that apply to the different types of tenancies and the different familial relationships in respect of those tenancies explain the apparent discrepancy. I am not sure that that is right. I cannot see that subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) clearly delineate different situations, either in terms of the familial relationship or the type of tenancy. The argument that he is spinning seems a bit thin. I do not know what the hon. and learned Member for Redcar thinks, but that is my impression of the case that the Minister has made. Perhaps it is something that we can come back to later.

Ms Vera Baird (Redcar, Labour)

As I understand it, they are separated. Subsections (2) and (4) are about different kinds of tenancy from subsections (1) and (3). I think that I am starting to grasp what the Minister is saying about the rationale behind the clause. I see that the primary purpose is to put husband and wife equivalents in the same position—by that, I mean opposite-sex partners and same-sex partners. It still gives a hierarchy of rights to people who should be in the same position. It is unfortunate that someone does not have the same rights to succeed because of what might be just an accident in the nature of the tenancy.

Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe, Labour)

Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that the key point—I do not think that the Minister has quite addressed it—is that although there may be

different rules and law under subsections (2) and (4), surely under the succession arrangements for the types of tenancy to which those subsections apply, a wife or a husband would not be treated as a member of the family; they would be given a different place in terms of succession? If the amendments were accepted, they would not give a same-sex partner a different relationship, in terms of succession, from a member of the family.

Ms Vera Baird (Redcar, Labour)

Although that is right, it seems to me that it goes a little wider. It does not give a spouse—whether same sex or opposite sex—the same right as a married person in connection with those two tenancies. With the other two kinds of tenancy, it gives them the same rights. It seems odd that although the intent is to give everyone equal rights, the effect is to give two sets of people unequal rights just because of the accident of the kind of tenancy that they have. The long-stop answer that the Law Commission might put it right in a couple of hundred years is not fantastically satisfactory.

Amendments were proposed that appeared in my elementary judgment to be perfectly easy. However, as the hon. Member for Ludlow said, they are starred and could not be carried through. I invite the Minister to consider whether amendments Nos. 455 and 456 might not meet the case and ensure what I am sure he set out to do, which is to give everybody the same rights as married people whatever the nature of the tenancy.

Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I do not have the Rent Act 1977, the Housing Act 1988 or the Housing Act 1996 in front of me, but I do have the Housing Act 1985, which is referred to in subsection (2) and is one of these slight aberrations. The more I read it, the more I regret not getting those amendments down on Tuesday, because section 87 of the 1985 Act, entitled ''Succession on death of a tenant'' and referred to by clause 165(2), is actually quite a small clause. If I read it aloud, it will make it clear that subsection (2) could easily have referred to a spouse rather than a member of the family.

''A person is qualified to succeed the tenant under a secure tenancy if he occupies the dwelling-house as his only or principal home at the time of the tenant's death and either—(a) is the tenant's spouse, or (b) he is another member of the tenant's family and resided with the tenant throughout the period of twelve months ending with the tenant's death; unless, in either case, the tenant was himself a successor, as defined in section 88''—

the problem of the second succession. The way that the Government have framed the subsection, it would not make any difference whether they are a member of the family or a spouse. For equal reasons, the Government could have framed it the other way around, which would make more sense in the reading of it for same-sex partners. The Government could easily have framed subsections (2) and (4)—certainly subsection (2); I cannot comment specifically on subsection (4) because I do not have the Act in front of me—in exactly the same way as subsections (1) and (3). That would have made no practical difference at all and would have avoided the problem of appearing to give different treatment to same-sex couples compared with married couples.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)

That, in a clumsy way, is the point that I was trying to make. In the various Acts referred to, the relationship of either family member or spouse could be applied in any of those circumstances. In two cases the Government have aligned same-sex partners with spouses, and in another two cases—although they could have done the same—they have aligned such partners with family members. I have had two looks at the Acts concerned; I am reading from the same section of the 1985 Act as the hon. Gentleman. His point is well made, and I am sure that the Minister will want to clear that up.

Vera Baird rose—

Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)

I give way.

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley and Sidcup, Conservative)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a long intervention on the hon. Member for Ludlow; it is not possible for him to give way to someone else. Before the Committee continues, I remind hon. Members that amendments Nos. 455 and 456, starred on the amendment paper, were not selected. Although I am happy for the debate to cover clause 165 generally, I hope that the Minister will not be tempted into responding as if those amendments were being considered, because they most definitely are not.

Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I was taking great care not to refer to those amendments; I was referring to the fact that the Government could have phrased subsection (2) like subsection (1). The fact that my amendment has not been selected is a different matter.

Did the hon. and learned Member for Redcar want to intervene on me?

Ms Vera Baird (Redcar, Labour)

No, I wanted to intervene on the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings in case he had the Housing Act 1996 with him as well. Subsection (4) is about the 1996 Act; we need to establish whether the same pattern that the hon. Member for Ludlow has pinpointed in the 1985 Act is replicated there.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)

I shall try to get it.

Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I thank the hon. and learned Lady for that wise intervention; clearly it is not helpful when one gets a clause referring to four different Acts in the space of about 20 sentences.

To satisfy the Committee and to prevent the matter coming back again, the Minister needs to explain how it would have made any difference if subsection (2) had been framed as subsection (1). Reading the 1985 Act, I cannot see that it would have made any difference at all. The whole thrust of the Government's legislation is to treat same-sex couples as though they were spouses; the Government could easily have framed the subsections in that way. The Minister might want to spend a little time exploring why he has ended up with that wording.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

I begin to feel that the Committee is losing sight of the very decent purpose, designed to secure the succession rights of same-sex tenancies, that is set out in the Bill. I reiterate that the civil

partnerships Bill will allow same-sex couples to succeed as spouses. We are dealing with an accumulation of legislation, but let me say to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar that the Government are seized of those tenure issues and of the complexities of legislation that may have been designed at different times to serve different purposes. That is why we look forward to the findings of the Law Commission. I will not be here in 200 years' time, but its findings will be published in the spring. The Government will respond to them with considerable interest.

I must also say that it is difficult for me, as a Minister, to deal with proposed amendments that have not been selected. In those circumstances, the Committee will have to forgive me for not having an obvious answer. I hope that it will satisfy the Committee if I say that I have listened to the debate with great care and that I shall consider these matters and, if necessary, come forward with further proposals.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)

The glint of Mack the Knife's blade is beginning to flash before the Committee again, so I had better keep my remarks brief.

There are real uncertainties about this clause. The specific points raised by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar are important. However, in making our judgment about the clause, we return to the fundamental issues about the unreasonableness of applying certain conditions to certain groups while implicitly excluding other groups that might in some

people's eyes be deemed to be equally deserving. We have had a long debate about that, and I do not want to extend it.

I would have loved to be able to quote from the 1996 Act—which is winging its way towards me, but not fast enough—and all the other legislation that is referred to in detail in this clause. However, on the basis of what I have said, I have to recommend to Conservative Committee members that we vote against this clause.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 5.