Protected Shorthold Tenancies

Part of Clause 51 – in the House of Commons at 7:30 pm on 20 May 1980.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr John Heddle Mr John Heddle , Lichfield and Tamworth 7:30, 20 May 1980

I would gladly put that question to the right hon. Member for Ardwick if I thought that it would elicit an honest response. I shall leave it to him to decide whether he will dwell on that point.

Earlier this afternoon, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary referred to another clause. We heard two different answers to the point relating to the option to the right to buy. We heard the answer of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), the chairman of the national executive committee of the Labour Party. We also heard the deafening silence from the right hon. Member for Ardwick, which clearly indicated his dissent.

I find the Opposition's lack of appreciation of a bipartisan approach to this debate sad, negative and depressing. I find it sad because shortholds will provide the key to unlocking our wooden and static society.

Last night, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) said that every Friday and Saturday in his advice bureau he hears from his constituents, particularly young people, who wish to rent a house, a flat or a bungalow. They do not mind whether it is a council house, flat or bungalow. All they want is the right to rent something somewhere. I believe that the Opposition's opposition to shorthold provisions generally is sad, because it means that some landlords will still prefer to sell their property when they obtain vacant possession on the expiry of the present tenancy, and thus that property and that landlord will be lost to the private rented sector for ever.

It is sad that Labour opposition to these provisions is negative. The Opposition have not—on Second Reading, or in the 140 hours of debate in Committee, or on Report—come forward with any constructive suggestions as to how those poor people doomed to remain on an ever lengthening council housing waiting list will ever enjoy the right to rent.

I find the Opposition's atittude to private landlords depressing. Many such landlords are highly reputable private property companies, such as the Bradford Property Trust. Some are charities and some are private trusts. Others are individuals whose life savings have been sunk in providing homes for others. The Opposition seem to find these landlords the subject of disdain and dogmatic dislike.

Despite, or possibly because of, successive Rent Acts and Housing Acts enacted by successive Governments of both political persuasions, the private rented sector has declined. Unless short-hold provisions are given a chance to succeed, it will continue to decline. It is only right to remind the House that in each year of the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979 the private rented sector diminished by 125,000 homes a year. It will continue to diminish unless the Opposition tonight give the shorthold provisions a chance to succeed.

It is despite, or possibly because of, the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 that homelessness has increased since that year. In 1977 there were 34,000 homeless households in the country. In 1978 there were 52,000, and in 1979, based on the half-yearly figure of 28,000, there were 56,000. It is just these poor people who have increased the numbers of homelessness since the passing of that Act who would benefit from the shorthold provisions which can give them the promise of a right to rent. It is just these people of whom the Opposition spoke, when in Government, in drafting their Green Paper of June 1977, whom the shorthold provisions would assist.

I quote from chapter 8.05 of the Green Paper: —Elderly people, often now with low incomes, who are regulated or controlled tenants of unfurnished accommodation. They may have lived in their present houses for many years. Similar people in younger age groups would normally become public sector tenants or home owners. When these tenants leave, the houses are often not re-let but sold for home ownership, bought by local authorities or demolished.—Older single people and couples without children who cannot afford home ownership. If not accepted for public sector tenancies they will need to rent privately on a long term basis. It is these people for whom the short-hold provisions will exist. —Newly married couples, or young single people setting up home for the first time. Most of these will be private tenants for a short time only. it is just these people for whom the shorthold provisions will exist. —People who move from one place to another … This group includes immigrants from overseas. It is just these people for whom the shorthold provisions will exist. —Members of families who split up as a result of domestic difficulties often need quick access to furnished rented accommodation, which may only be available in the private sector. It is for these people that the short-hold provisions will exist.

8.15 pm

I remind the Opposition that that same housing policy document said that the needs of many of those people I have mentioned would only be satisfied by renting, and under present arrangements most would not have a very high priority on the public sector waiting list. It is just for these people that the shorthold provisions will exist.

The policy document goes on to say: If the decline continued unabated and no action were taken to compensate for the loss of accommodation from the sector, many people—particularly new or mobile households—might not be able to find the housing they need. It might be argued—though the evidence is tenuous—that this is already beginning to happen in a number of areas. To guard against this, we need to consider what action can be taken to stimulate the supply of let-tings within the private sector. It is just for these people and their aspirations that the shorthold provisions will exist.