RENT BILL [LORDS] (Hansard, 30 July 1974)

§ Mr. Lawrence

The point at which a landlord would take a tenant to a magistrates' court would be when he could prove, or was advised by his lawyer that he could prove, the specific intent to do the series of acts which is set out in the clause. The mens rea involves a very high degree of proof. There is no question of an order being made against a tenant who has slipped up only once. All the magistrates that I know in London would make short shrift of such a prosecution.

I can see no basis for any of the arguments which have been advanced by the Under-Secretary to justify not doing something which it is patently obvious to hon. Members, to those who man citizens' advice bureaux and to the Francis Committee should be done.

Francis reported in 1971. Much water has flowed under the bridge since then. For example, there has been a drying up of rented accommodation. As a result, there has been a channelling into furnished accommodation, particularly of young people who cannot get on to a council housing list and cannot buy a house of their own.

A phenomenon which is currently much to be observed is the generation gap where young people become more and more frustrated and older people try to hang on to property for which they have saved all their lives. Increasingly there is likely to be conflict between landlord and tenant.

In the short time that I have been in Parliament I cannot say that I have had the satisfaction of knowing that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), or West Ham as perhaps he would prefer to have it known, has been on my side. In this debate the hon. Gentleman made fair to become the landlord's friend. He pointed to something which all of us know is happening. Tenants realise that by causing trouble in their accommodation they can prevail upon their landlord to serve a notice to quit and then they can seek alternative accommodation from the local authority.

625 These are reasons why the evidence which was sufficiently adequate to convince Francis is even more adequate three years later. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked whether there was much point in this clause. There is a difference between the ordinary remedy available in the civil law and that which we propose, which is criminal. The difference between these two kinds of remedy is the difference that existed in 1965 when the Labour Government saw fit to introduce a special criminal remedy under the Rent Act to prevent harassment of tenants by landlords. The Opposition did not expect anything would be done, although we accept the assurances given by the Minister that he has a good deal of sympathy. The Government's refusal to accede to this clause underlines their 626 whole attitude to the Bill. From start to finish it has been that the landlord is always, or nearly always, wrong and the tenant is always, or nearly always, right. With the best will in the world I can see no other reason, other than the desire to perpetuate that for the purpose of the political campaign which will shortly be coming, why they should seek to resist this most moderate clause.

Unfortunately, we cannot rely on the support of the Liberals and there would, therefore, not be much point in pressing this matter to a division. I therefore conclude that we are thrown on to the good will of the Government, and I hope that they will show their good will even at this late stage, by accepting the clause or the principle of it.