| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Portillo: I had a feeling that the Minister was coming to the end of his remarks. I am grateful for all the things that he has said. However, the combination of accumulating arrears and the length of time that the House of Lords judgment is likely to take is not very encouraging to the many people who are affected by great anxiety. Also, the very fact that he was refused leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal does not give the best indicator of the likelihood of success in the House of Lords. Therefore, does he accept that a much more expeditious route would be to initiate new legislation?
Mr. Mullin: I was going to touch on that in my closing remarks. I said as well that we expect to hear the outcome of our application for leave to appeal within the next two weeks, when the position will become much clearer. If there is to be an appeal, we have a period of several months in which to work out how to address it. If there is to be no appeal, we must take action fairly quickly.
I hope that what I have already said about existing arrears will go some way to allaying people's fears. However, in these circumstances, it is entirely understandable that my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North and the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea should raise the possibility of introducing new primary legislation.
As I have said, we share my hon. Friend's concern to provide these tenants, many of them vulnerable, with protection from excessive increases in rent, which we continue to believe is reasonable. I am sure that the House will appreciate that we cannot pre-empt the decision to be made in another place. We must await the result of our petition and if leave is refused, I assure the House that we will consider the position urgently.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Seven o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |