PROTECTION OF TENANTS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES) (Hansard, 4 May 1960)

§ Mr. Dingle Foot (Ipswich)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide security of tenure for tenants of local authorities, authorities owning or managing new towns, housing associations, housing trusts, and other similar bodies. The purpose of the proposed Bill is to give to council tenants and to tenants of housing associations and trusts the same protection as is now given under the Rent Acts to the tenants of controlled premises. Hon. Members who sat in the last Parliament will recall that this Bill was first introduced about a year ago by Mr. Niall MacDermot. He fell by the wayside at the last General Election, but those of us who were his colleagues confidently hope and expect that it will not be long before we see him back here again.

Broadly speaking, the effect of the Measure would be that to obtain possession of a council house without proof of suitable alternative accommodation the local authority would need to show to the satisfaction of a county court judge that the rent is in arrears, or that there has been some breach of the housing conditions. It would also have to establish to the judge's satisfaction that in all the circumstances it was reasonable to make the order.

Three years ago, when the Government carried through Parliament their Rent Act, 1957, it certainly appeared to most of us that they intended in due course to get rid of the whole structure of the Rent Restrictions Acts, and, therefore, of protection for controlled tenants. Now, as a result of public opinion and of constant pressure from these benches, they have retreated from that position. They retreated in 1958 when they introduced the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act, which restored a certain degree of protection to those whose premises had been decontrolled under the 1957 Act.

In their General Election manifesto the Conservative Party said this: In the next Parliament we shall take no further action to decontrol rents. I will assume, at least for the purpose of my argument, that that pledge will 1089 be kept. If so, it means that for the lifetime of this Parliament, and perhaps for many years longer, the protection given by the Rent Acts will continue. It follows that, unless we legislate in the sense which I now propose, we shall continue in force what has always seemed to me a very strange anomaly in our law.

The tenant of a private landlord is given almost complete protection. Unless he fails to pay his rent, or commits waste, or is a nuisance to his neighbours, or breaks some other condition, he cannot be turned out. On the other hand, the tenant of a council house has virtually no protection. He is completely at the mercy of his landlord. The council can give him a week's notice to quit for any reason which seems good to it, and for a reason which it is not even bound to state.

At the last General Election the party opposite made a good deal of play with the position of council tenants. They opened their campaign with a television broadcast by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which did nothing to add to the dignity of the contest. I will quote one passage from what the right hon. Gentleman had to say: How about the nationalisation of houses? Of course, once again they do not call it nationalisation. That's a naughty word. They call it municipalisation. Well, they're planning to buy up every rent-controlled house in the country—five million or six million houses in all, at a cost—their own estimate—of £2,500 million. Every rent-controlled house in the country. Just interpret what it would mean. Every tenant a council tenant. Say you fell out with your local council or mayor. If you want to keep a dog, say, in a district where the council doesn't like animals. Or they may have ideas about your front garden you don't like. Well, you've nowhere else to go. This does mean the Socialist State getting control of our lives, our homes, the work of every one of us. The right hon. Gentleman, in that broadcast, omitted to inform his audience that the policy which he was attacking specifically included provision for security of tenure for council tenants. No doubt the matter slipped his mind. In view of the concern for council tenants which he exhibited at the last General Election, I invite him to support the Motion if there should be a Division today. I further invite him, if the Motion should be carried, to use his influence with the Leader of the House to secure that time should be provided for all the stages of this Bill.

1090 I do not suggest—no one would suggest—that the great majority of local authorities are not perfectly good landlords. No one would suggest that as a general rule they use their powers oppressively. But from time to time cases do arise where tenants are evicted, or more frequently threatened with eviction, not because they are bad tenants, not because they have failed to pay their rent, not because they have broken any condition of their tenancy, but because of some entirely extraneous consideration.

May I give the House three examples? A few years ago there was a very notorious case in a London borough. A council tenant was sent to prison and immediately thereafter his wife and family received notice to quit the council house. The eviction order on that occasion was made the subject of an appeal to the Divisional Court. It was then that Lord Goddard said that a local authority can get rid of a tenant if it does not like the colour of his eyes.

Let me give an example of a different kind, one from my own constituency. A year or two ago a number of council tenants were informed that they must not in future park their motor bicycles on the path or the plot of grass in front of their houses. There was nothing whatever in the housing regulations that forbade it, but when some of them persisted in the practice they were given notice to quit.

Let me give a third example which was brought to my attention only this morning by one of my hon. Friends. For obvious reasons, I will not mention the name either of the authority or the person concerned. A council house was occupied by a woman who for several years had been separated from her husband. She occupied the house with her children. She paid her rent regularly and the house was immaculately kept. However, the news got out that she was about to have an illegitimate child. She was then given notice to quit by the local authority. It was only the vigorous immediate intervention of the Member of Parliament concerned which caused that notice to be withdrawn. Our view on this side of the House is that it is not the business of local authorities to act as judges of conduct or of morals. Their only concern is to see to it that the conditions of the tenancies are observed.

1091 We on this side will be very interested to discover the attitude of the party opposite to this Bill. Let me make it quite clear to hon. Members that this is intended in the nature of a challenge. If hon. Members opposite genuinely believe, as they say they do, in the protection of the citizen against unnecessary bureaucratic interference, they will assist us, as they can if they will, to pass the Bill through all its stages. If, on the other hand, they are against us, I hope that they will make that clear today. Let them use their majority to vote us down on this occasion, just as they did on the Suez inquiry five weeks ago. What I ask them is that they will not allow the Motion to pass today and then put up one of their number to shout "Object" Whenever the Second Reading is called.

Finally, I submit that the Bill embodies a principle of the highest importance, namely, the right of the ordinary citizen in his own home. This is something which goes a very long way back. Many hon. Members are probably familiar with a famous passage in a speech of Lord Chatham, two hundred years ago: The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail—its roof may shake—the wind may blow through it—the storm may enter —the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter!—all his forces dare not cross the threshhold of the ruined tenement. 1092 No doubt it is a far cry from the ruined tenement of the eighteenth century to the council houses of today. But at least we ought to approach the problem in very much the same spirit. Whichever political party prevails at the next General Election, and whatever housing policy is adopted in the future, it is quite certain that for the rest of our lifetime several millions of our people will continue to occupy houses rented from public authorities. We in this House can, if we will, make certain that they shall not be capriciously dispossessed.