HL Deb 10 July 1996 vol 574 cc421-5

(".—(1) A county court has jurisdiction to determine questions arising under this Part and to entertain proceedings brought under this Part and claims, for whatever amount, in connection with an introductory tenancy.

(2) That jurisdiction includes jurisdiction to entertain proceedings as to whether a statement supplied in pursuance of section 131(2)(b) (written statement of certain terms of tenancy) is accurate notwithstanding that no other relief is sought than a declaration.

(3) If a person takes proceedings in the High Court which, by virtue of this section, he could have taken in the county court, he is not entitled to recover any costs.

(4) The Lord Chancellor may make such rules and give such directions as he thinks fit for the purpose of giving effect to this section.

(5) The rules and directions may provide—

  1. (a) for the exercise by a district judge of a county court of any jurisdiction exercisable under this section, and
  2. (b) for the conduct of proceedings in private.

(6) The power to make rules is exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause imports similar provisions to those for the secure tenancy regime in Sections 110 and 111 of the Housing Act 1985 to make it clear that the county court deals with any disputes that arise about introductory tenancies.

The clause provides that for introductory tenancies the county court has jurisdiction to determine questions, deal with claims and entertain possession proceedings. In addition, it provides that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor may make rules and give directions in relation to the handling of introductory tenancy cases in county courts. This mirrors similar provisions in existing legislation for secure tenancies. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 135 [Consequential amendments: introductory tenancies]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 180: Page 87, line 24, at end insert—

("( ) The Secretary of State may by order make such other amendments or repeals of any enactment as appear to him necessary or expedient in consequence of the provisions of this Chapter.

( ) Any such order—

  1. (a) may contain such transitional provisions and savings as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and
  2. (b) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 135 provides that consequential amendments to the introductory tenancy provisions are set out in Schedule 13. Amendment No. 180 provides an order-making power so that any consequential amendments that have not already been identified in the Bill can be made when Chapter 1 of Part V is brought into force.

There is an extensive list of pieces of legislation that contain references to secure tenancies. Each of these references must be scrutinised to decide whether a reference to introductory tenancies should also be made. For example, in the Family Law Act 1996 it will be necessary to add a reference to introductory tenancies alongside that to secure tenancies. This sort of detailed provision is more sensibly dealt with by secondary legislation.

I emphasise that the use of this amendment will be strictly limited to minor consequential amendments. Clause 55 of the Bill contains a similar provision in the case of registered social landlords by providing a power to make an order for minor or consequential amendments. As under Clause 55, the order would be subject to negative resolution. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 13 [Introductory tenancies: consequential amendments]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 181 and 182:

Page 178, line 12, leave out from ("Part") to ("Chapter") in line 13 and insert (""introductory tenancy" has the same meaning as in").

Page 178, line 24, at end insert ("or (b) by virtue of the tenant, or in the case of a joint tenancy every tenant, ceasing to occupy the dwelling-house as his only or principal home.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 181 with Amendment No. 25 and Amendment No. 182 with Amendment No.168. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 136 [Index of defined expressions: introductory tenancies]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 183 and 184:

Page 87, line 35, after ("tenancy") insert ("and introductory tenant").

Page 87, line 39, after ("tenancy") insert ("and secure tenant").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 25. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 137 [Extension of ground of nuisance or annoyance to neighbours, &c.]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 184A:

Page 88, line 15, at end insert— ("( ) When considering whether to grant possession under this Ground on the basis that conduct is likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance and where there is no direct evidence adduced to the court that any person has been caused a nuisance or annoyance then, in deciding whether it is reasonable to make an order for possession, the court shall take into account any evidence provided by the landlord that witnesses are being or may be intimidated and the extent (if any) to which the court has used its powers effectively to protect any such witnesses from such intimidation.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 184B. These amendments are concerned with what might be called "professional witnesses".

That is to say, they would allow a local authority to provide evidence that witnesses have been intimidated and would ensure that the court considers all its powers to protect witnesses.

The amendment would apply when a local authority was seeking possession on the ground that conduct was likely to cause a nuisance and could not prove that there was an actual nuisance, because no tenants or neighbours were prepared to come forward. That situation, where there are threats and there is some element of intimidation is, regrettably, not uncommon. Therefore, tenants or neighbours are reluctant to come forward to testify. The amendment has the effect that when this occurs, in deciding whether it is reasonable to make an order for possession, the court has to take into account the degree of intimidation that exists and whether it can protect witnesses. In other words, it must take account of the difficulties that the local authority has had in bringing the case to court in deciding whether to make possession based on a likelihood of nuisance rather than actual nuisance. The more powers that the court has exercised to protect witnesses, the more reasonable it is to expect the local authority to produce those witnesses in court.

It is agreed that this can be a difficult situation where there can be threats and intimidation and it is difficult for the local authority to produce the witnesses who would provide the evidence that is necessary. On the other hand, one ought not to have a system which, in a sense, encourages intimidation because, if witnesses are intimidated and do not appear, people will say "Well, we have succeeded and we can go on behaving in an anti-social way towards other people living near us".

The purpose of the amendment is therefore to provide a safeguard against such goings-on. I think it would be helpful. It would certainly make dealing with such difficulties a little easier. I beg to move.

11 p.m.

Lord Lucas

Clause 137 amends Ground 2 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985. The schedule sets out the grounds for possession of dwelling houses let under secure tenancies.

Clause 137 strengthens the existing ground for possession based on nuisance and annoyance to neighbours in three ways. First, so that it applies to behaviour in the locality of the tenant's property; secondly, so that it covers behaviour by visitors to properties; and, thirdly, so that it covers the situation where the tenant, a person living with him or a visitor has been convicted of an arrestable offence in the locality of a house or flat.

For the purposes of Amendment No. 184A the key part of Clause 137 is that it will also enable local authorities to evict a tenant for behaviour which is likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance. The purpose of this new provision is that the victim of the behaviour may not have to give evidence. Instead, this might be provided by a professional witness.

As I indicated when we discussed a similar amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, at Committee stage, the Government believe that Clause 137 achieves the intention of the amendment that is before us now which is to enable a local authority to secure an eviction on the basis of evidence given by a professional witness, rather than by the victims themselves. We know that some local authorities have already found themselves able to proceed successfully in such cases. Sunderland is a prime example. Other authorities have not fared so well.

Clause 137 makes it clear to the courts that there is statutory backing for the use of professional witnesses to prove that particular conduct is likely to cause nuisance. Ultimately we cannot tell the courts how to deal with individual cases—and that is right. But in the Government's opinion Clause 137 puts it beyond doubt that evidence from a professional witness can be accepted as grounds for eviction.

There are, of course, steps that can and should be taken to protect witnesses. For example, local authorities can apply for a non-molestation order. Where there is an adjournment the authority can ask for an undertaking from the defendant not to harass or interfere with the witness in the meantime. We have included such advice on the protection of witnesses in the Department of Environment's guidance Getting the best out of the court system in possession cases, which was prepared in conjunction with the Lord Chancellor's Department and which was sent to all local authorities in England and Wales in March this year. A number of practical steps can be taken to reassure and protect vulnerable witnesses when they attend the court, such as the use of screens or video evidence, and the provision of separate waiting areas.

The provisions of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 enable hearsay evidence to be admitted as evidence. The weight to be given to the evidence is for the courts to determine and will depend on the facts of each case, but the Act (which is due to come into force in the autumn) does say that one of the matters for consideration is whether it would be reasonable to have called the witness. Clearly, the likelihood of the intimidation of the witness would be a relevant consideration.

To sum up, we feel that in this Bill and related legislation we have created sufficient new powers to overcome the problems which these amendments are designed to solve. We therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 184A.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I thank the Minister for what he has said, but I am not totally convinced that all is as clear cut as he suggested. Obviously, there is provision for professional witnesses—I had thought that my amendments would make that clearer—but the phrase, "likely to cause a nuisance", in Clause 137 bothers me. I wonder whether the courts would think that the phrase "likely to cause" is as clear cut as the Minister suggests. It would be up to the courts to decide how to interpret the phrase—and that might not give the whole procedure the clarity and certainty that the Minister has suggested. Certainly, the court would have the discretion to interpret the matter rather differently. I had assumed that my amendments would make the position clearer, both as regards protecting witnesses and using professional witnesses. The phrase "likely to cause" therefore creates some doubt. I wonder whether, with the leave of the House, the Minister could clarify that because I am unhappy lest the consequence be not what he said that it would be.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, I am not happy that the noble Lord is unhappy. I shall discuss the matter again with my officials and doubtless they will do so with their legal advisers. As so far today I have managed to avoid promising to write to anybody, I hope that they will forgive me for promising to write to the noble Lord to allay his fears about how that phrase will be interpreted.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that, especially as it puts me in the unique position of receiving a letter from him as a result of today's proceedings. This is an important matter and I appreciate the fact that the noble Lord is attempting to be helpful. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 184B not moved.]

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 185: After Clause 138, insert the following new clause—