PROTECTION FROM EVICTION BILL (Hansard, 8 December 1964)

§ Mr. Parkin
The one point of interest in that complicated story possibly was that the landlord of the house had actually borrowed money from Paddington Borough Council to buy it, 194, Portland Road, and the council had taken no measure to ensure that the tenancy of the house was secure. The only question in this case was who had the stronger arm. These are acts of violence, demoralising to the public as well as to those who have to suffer. I hope therefore that we shall see the end of this practice now.
I am sorry to have to introduce a note of regret, more in sorrow than in anger, that the Minister was not able to make the provisions of the Bill apply to local authorities as well. It is very necessary in the course of the next year and the long discussions which will take place over the next rent Bill that it should be understood that this particular device for gaining a court warrant for dispossession by an officer of the court, without the provision of alternative accommodation, must cease and is excluded from any subsequent discussions. This has gone for ever, and local authorities must begin to get it into their heads that it is not available to them either. I can understand that in the haste in preparing the Bill, and I am as responsible as anyone else for that—

§ Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)
On a point of order. Is it in order on Third Reading for an hon. Member to refer at length to matters which are not in the Bill?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King)
It is not in order, and the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) must keep to the subject matter of the Bill.

§ Mr. Parkin
I appreciate, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you have been caught by 1458 the intervention of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls).

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. Member must get back to the subject matter of the Bill and not discuss the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls).

§ Mr. Parkin
If the hon. Member for Peterborough who asked you for that ruling had read the Bill he would have seen that in Clause 3(2) there is a specific reservation of the powers of the local authorities, and I should be much obliged if he would not interrupt again.

§ Sir Harmar Nicholls
On a point of order. Am I to understand that the hon. Member for Paddington, North is contesting your Ruling on this matter, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I do not think that the hon. Member for Paddington, North is, and I hope that he will be allowed to get on with his speech.

§ Mr. Parkin
We all understand that it is often necessary for warnings to be issued in Third Reading debates that hon. Members should kindly keep to what is in the Bill, but this is very revealing because it shows how the bureaucrats can smuggle their bits of algebra into these documents in defence of their own interests when nobody notices it. Clause 3(2) provides that Nothing in this Act shall affect the operation of the Small Tenements Recovery Act 1838 in so far as it has been applied by any other Act, or of section 22(2), 45(3) or 85(2) of the Housing Act 1957. Section 22(2) of the Housing Act, 1957, applies to houses which have a demolition order on them. Section 45(3) refers to houses which have a clearance order on them, and Section 85(2) refers to houses which are overcrowded.
In each of these cases, unfortunately, it has been thought necessary to leave the law as it is. I can quite understand the circumstances. A lot of negotiating has to be done before one can secure an agreed amendment of local government legislation, but I should have expected the Minister to be as confident as I was that such practices on the part of local authorities would cease forthwith.
It was no pleasure to me—quite the contrary—to learn at mid-day last Thursday that the London County Council had taken out a sheriff's order to evict a woman from St. Philip's Place, Paddington, 1459 on 11th December. I rang up the Parliamentary Secretary's Office, because he is the man who can speak sharply to various authorities in London, and I left a message that I hoped that this eviction would not take place and that, unless I got a message to that effect, I should raise the matter in the House of Commons. I felt quite certain that, after one telephone call, that would be the end of it.
A very curious thing happened. I got no response from the Parliamentary Secretary's office. This shows how these things can go on. I received a message rather later in the day to ring the private secretary to the Minister of Sport. This was after office closing hours, and I felt slightly flattered. I was sure that the Minister of Sport was to open a paddling pool or something in my constituency and I should be asked to be present.
The following morning I telephoned to the number I had been given and I collected a little lecture on the inevitability of the eviction of this lady. It had nothing whatever to do with the Department to which the Minister of Sport is attached in either a Parliamentary or a financial sense. It was a mistake by the channels of communication, but I could see how eager everyone was to get things off his Minister's desk. What made me angry was that it was said to me, "This woman has brought this on herself".

§ Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)
Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, could he, for the record—I have no wish to enter into controversy about it—tell the House to whom he is referring when he mentions the Minister of Sport? I understood that there was no such gentleman.

§ Mr. Parkin
As I was about to say, there was a case for negotiation with this lady. I told her myself that, although I did not think that she need fear execution of the sheriff's warrant, she must at once make up her mind about which of the available dwellings she was able to take. There had been some confusion. A letter had been lost. A clearance scheme was to be carried out. But it is wrong to say that someone in these circumstances has "brought it on herself", when, without any wish of hers, she is to have her home compulsorily bought over her head—in this 1460 case getting £115 for it—and is to be pushed somewhere else because the area is wanted for another purpose. It is a misuse of words to say that such people bring things on themselves. They do not. Someone has to speak up sometimes for the individual who can be caught in this kind of bureaucratic process.
I do not know whether I dare go further and tell the House about another case which I have put in the Minister's hands. Similarly, under a clearance order, there lives a lady who is so misguided as to keep a poodle. Her house is to be pulled down over her head, and she has been told that the rules for the alternative accommodation available do not permit poodles to be rehoused. There is all the difference in the world between applying for a council flat and being told what the rules are before one is accepted into it and having one's house pulled down over one's head, the authority being obliged to offer alternative accommodation suitable to one's needs.
I hope that I am not misusing this opportunity to say that it must be understood now that, in the course of the discussions, local authorities must get used to the idea that this particular practice is no longer available to them and they have to prepare a case to go before a court. In this case, it could probably have been settled in 10 minutes. The local authority would have produced evidence of the kind of alternative accommodation offered. It would have been granted possession on a certain date but the alternative accommodation would have been available.
Now this device for eviction is out for good. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is his general intention. One of the difficult things in politics is that one can go for the crooks but so much evil is done by well-intentioned people who are being lazy and who are taking the easy way out. If we are to embark on a great new charter of landlord-tenant relations in order to get rid of thraldom, of exploitation and tyranny, we must see that those who are to administer the vast number of municipally-owned dwellings appreciate that they must be ready to meet many more varieties of personal need. We must establish certain basic rights of the individual. For 1461 that reason, among many others, I welcome the Bill and rejoice in it.
I feel a little like Samuel Plimsoll who was, perhaps, an insufferable colleague in this House but who had perhaps one 1462 moment when he felt that he had done something good.