ADVERSE OCCUPATION OF RESIDENTIAL PREMISES (Hansard, 13 July 1977)

§ Mr. Arthur Davidson
I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 7, line 6. after 'trespasser', insert 'after having entered as such'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we may take Amendment No. 38, in page 7, line 9, at end insert— '(1A) For the purpose of this section "trespasser" shall no: include—

(a) a person who enters or re-enters for the purpose of continuing to occupy the premises after the termination of his lawful authority to occupy those premises; or

(b) a person occupying the premises at the time of the termination of the lawful authority; or

(c) any person who is invited onto the premises by a person continuing to occupy the premises who is not a trespasser by virtue of (a) or (b) above.'.

§ Mr. Davidson
This is a technical amendment which will not, I think, arouse quite the same difficulties as Amendment No. 30. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). I have never seen him in a dilemma which was insoluble. This is a technical amendment which arises from a point which, again, was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) in Committee. The effect of it is to provide that in no circumstances could the Clause 7 offence be committed by a person who had entered premises lawfully—for example, to occupy them as a licensee—even though he had subsequently become a trespasser as a result of the withdrawal of his licence. I am sure my hon. Friends would agree that a person who bad occupied premises lawfully ought not to have to leave them instantly on request in order to avoid arrest and conviction for a criminal offence.

§ Mr. Corbett
Amendment No. 38 seeks the same object as Amendment No. 35. I am advised that there are at least two main meanings of the word "entered". The amendment seeks to ensure that lawful occupiers holding over are not caught by the clause. Because the normal criminal definition of entry is simply walking in and taking possession, an ex-licensee enters as a trespasser when he returns home from work, lust as much as a squatter does when he moves into an empty property.
The Government no doubt hope that the courts will give entry its civil housing law meaning—that because, at the beginning of a notice, a licensee entered with permission, that entry will override the later trespasses. Is it conceivable that in certain circumstances the courts will be 708 tempted to take the literal meaning of the word rather than its technical meaning? Amendment No. 38 is designed to meet that danger. Is my hon. Friend sure that the courts will interpret the word "entered" as the Government amendment intends?

§ Mr. Arthur Davidson
I am assured that the meaning that my hon. Friend has in mind is the correct one, but if there is anything wrong we shall look at the matter before the Bill goes to another place.

§ Mr. Mikardo
I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 7, line 8, leave out 'or on behalf of'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we may take Amendment No. 39, in page 7, line 13, leave out 'or a person acting on behalf of a displaced residential occupier'.

§ Mr. Mikardo
Subsection (1) provides that a person commits an offence if he is a trespasser and refuses to leave if required to do so, not only by the displaced residential occupier—there is no objection to that—but also by someone acting on the occupier's behalf. This raises problems. How does the man know that the person speaking to him is acting on behalf of the occupier? If the person is a constable—in uniform or in plain clothes but with a warrant card—it is easy enough. But private police organisations and security companies are mushrooming. Until not so long ago—they may still exist—property owners, including those who lived in their property, used strong-arm men to act on their behalf. Some nasty incidents have resulted. As it stands, the subsection—a parallel situation is covered by Amendment No. 39—is objectionable on those grounds.

§ Mr. Graham Page
I do not regard this as a small matter. It is very substantial. However, I disagree with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) about the amendment. Is he really suggesting that an old lady who has been in hospital and is returning home should have to shout through the letter-box to give orders personally? Is he saying that those who are away on holiday when they receive a message from 709 their agent telling them that squatters have moved in should have to come back? It is quite unreasonable to say that they cannot engage someone on their behalf.
There is also protection for squatters in subsection (2). It is an offence to charge if the squatters believe that the person acting on behalf of the displaced residential occupier is not so acting. The amendment would place people in great difficulty.

§ Mr. John
If the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) can stand the shock of my agreeing with him, I shall say that his point is valid. There are cases where a person has, or should have, someone able to act on his or her behalf. Also, I agree that there is the defence for the person in occupation. It would be valuable for any person who was seeking to act on behalf of a displaced residential occupier to furnish himself with the clearest evidence that he was doing so, or subsection (2) could afford him difficulties.

§ Mr. Mikardo
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) for the points he has made, and I accept that they have validity. In view also of what my hon. Friend the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.