HC Deb 09 June 1988 vol 134 cc1071-92
Mr. Waldegrave

I beg to move amendment No. 262, in page 16, line 36, leave out `or any person acting on his behalf' and insert `(in this section referred to as "the landlord in default") or any person acting on behalf of the landlord in default'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 263 to 267, 269, 271 and 273.

Mr. Waldegrave

This important group of amendments deals with strengthened powers to deal with harassment and related matters.

Clauses 25 and 26 provide a new civil right to compensation for a tenant who has been unlawfully evicted by his landlords or the landlord's agent. The compensation is based on the difference in the value of the landlord's interest in the building with and without the tenant. In Committee we undertook to widen those clauses to catch cases in which the eviction was carried out by a superior landlord or someone acting on his behalf. That could happen.

The amendments discharge that undertaking. They will be of particular help in cases where the superior landlord is about to require the reversion of the tenancy and therefore might have a large financial interest in getting the tenant out. The amendments will ensure that in those circumstances the tenant can benefit from any increase in the value of the superior landlord's interest in the building as a result of the eviction.

I hope that the House will forgive me if I say a few words about anti-harassment in general as an introduction to this group of amendments. We must ensure that landlords who harass their tenants do not profit from it. There has been widespread support for the measures in the Bill to strengthen the provisions, and for the new right to civil damages. The amendments will reinforce the provisions to which I have just referred. We intend to introduce amendments to widen the scope of clause 25 and to extend the basis on which damages are assessed under clause 26 to include development value and to widen the new criminal offence of harassment in clause 27. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will probably welcome those amendments, although in some respects he may want us to go further.

8.30 pm

All the amendments strengthen the Bill and I am happy to acknowledge that in part they are due to the constructive criticisms that were made in Committee by both sides, many of them by Opposition Members. It is right that I should acknowledge that my officials have had a great deal of assistance from Shelter, the private tenants rights group, the Association of Tenancy Relations Officers and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. They have all made suggestions about how the Bill could be improved and, equally important, how it could be effectively enforced. Enforcement is important. We intend to mount a wide publicity campaign to tell tenants about the new provisions and about their rights generally. We must also discuss with local authorities how these matters can be carried forward.

Some landlords are so negligent in carrying out repairs that their failure to repair could clearly be interpreted as an attempt to drive out the tenant by neglect. In Committee I said that we intended to introduce amendments in another place. They have to be introduced in another place for reasons that I think the hon. Member for Hammersmith understands. They will strengthen local authorities' powers to get repairs done.

Some of the amendments will entail redefining the person who has control of the property in order to counter evasion. We intend also to amend the relevant sections of part XI of the Housing Act 1985 that deal with similar notices served on the owners of houses in multiple occupation in order to counter evasion of those notices by landlords. All the amendments will prove valuable in reinforcing the considerable powers that local authorities already possess.

Local authorities have powers, but tenants also have wide powers. It is not the absence of rights that prevents tenants from enforcing rights concerning repairs; it is often the cost and the fear of going to court. That is why we all welcome the proposals in the report of the Lord Chancellor's review body on civil justice, published on 7 June, for housing action as a low cost, informal method of bringing cases such as repairs to court.

Much of the disreputable activity with which these clauses are designed to deal takes place in houses that are in multiple occupation. Many of the poorest and most vulnerable members of society live in houses in multiple occupation, as our own research has shown. Local authorities have wide powers to deal with the poor conditions that are found in HMOs. They may repair them. They may set up a registration scheme to keep track of HMOs in their areas. They may impose management orders. They may also, where conditions are very bad, impose control orders. There is an environmental health adviser in the Department. He is touring the country and talking to local authorities to find out how these powers work in practice. It is clear that they could be improved in several respects.

My Department will be consulting local authorities and other interested organisations on a series of proposals to which we hope to give effect in the next Housing Bill. I think that I should be legitimately criticised if I introduced at this late stage a series of amendments that related to HMOs. However, I wanted to address these points because a number of hon. Members, in particular the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), made a number of them in Committee and I did not want him to think that we had forgotten about them. We shall propose a revised definition of an HMO. We shall propose that the management regulations on HMOs that apply basic minimum standards should apply to all HMOs. We shall also make proposals for simplifying and improving the control order procedure. We shall consult local authorities on the means of making the registration scheme more effective.

I have mentioned the control order procedure. Our guidance to local authorities will make it clear that the control order procedure and their compulsory purchase powers can be used in bad cases of harassment. Some local authorities have already successfully used those powers. I hope that the effect of the new provisions will be that there is a reduced need to consider such draconian steps in future. but the powers are there and we shall make sure that local authorities realise fully how many of them can be used.

I hope that the hon. Member for Hammersmith will forgive me for straying outside the scope of the amendments under discussion. I am aware that not all the problems have been tackled by these amendments. That is why I wanted slightly to widen the debate and to let him know that in due course we shall be consulting local authorities on HMO improvements. I hope that they will meet some of the points that he and his hon. Friends raised in Committee.

Mr. Soley

The Minister has conceded some of the points that we made in Committee, for which I am grateful. He has also said that he is willing to take action on houses in multiple occupation. They are an acute cause of concern. We shall await his proposals. However, we fear that the Government have underestimated the problems that a tenant faces in taking legal action. If he is faced with the threat of eviction, that alone is sufficient to make him drop any action that is designed to challenge the landlord. If he is in imminent danger of being evicted and he is successfully evicted and made homeless, the chances of him being able successfully to pursue a court case, however quick and easy that process may be, are minimal. We have to bear in mind the changes that are being made to legal aid. Not all these cases will be dealt with under the civil system that has been recommended by the Lord Chancellor. If one bears in mind the proposed changes to legal aid, some people will be in acute difficulties. All the evidence is that tenants have great difficulty in successfully pursuing actions against landlords. They are often better represented and they have far more money and stability with which to fight their case.

It was pointed out in Committee that it is not sufficient to talk about powers for local authorities. We need to talk about their duties. If a tenant goes to a local authority and says, "I am being harassed," and the local authority says to him, "We are sorry, but we do not have a tenancy relations officer, but you can see the environmental health officer, if you like," the environmental health officer will say to the tenant, "There are only one or two of us; we look into health factors in shops and factories and we do not have time to pursue your case." That tenant will therefore be left without any outside support. It happens in case after case. That is why we should prefer the amendment that is to be introduced in the other place to impose on local authorities a duty rather than just give them a power.

We shall want to look in detail at the amendment that is to be introduced in the other place. I hope that the Minister will take on board some of our anxieties. I hope that he will ensure that local authorities have both the power to act and the resources with which to deliver that action, thereby making it effective for a tenant to go to his local authority. By doing so, he will make life in his rented home very much more difficult than if he had done nothing.

Mr. Squire

A great deal of attention was rightly devoted in Committee to the clauses that deal with tightening up of the action that can be taken against rogue landlords. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, there was concern about this problem on both sides of the Committee. What he has said today will therefore be welcomed both inside and outside the House. Any tightening up that makes it less likely that tenants will be harassed and driven from their rightful home has to be welcomed.

I have been a member of the board of Shelter for six or seven years and I am grateful that my hon. Friend paid tribute to the help that Shelter has given to the Department. He is sufficiently realistic to know that the help that is being given is unlikely to remove all the reservations that Shelter has about the Bill, but I am having fruitful discussions with Shelter about its reservations. It is an important step, welcomed by Shelter and by many other organisations in housing.

The Minister mentioned houses in multiple occupation. In many cases the position is so bad that we would again find common ground across the Chamber if the Government introduced legislation to tackle the very worst at the earliest opportunity as many people live in the most squalid conditions imaginable. I look forward to seeing the detailed proposals that the Government have undertaken to introduce.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 263, in page 16, line 40, leave out `or any person on his behalf' and insert '(in this section referred to as "the landlord in default") or any person acting on behalf of the landlord in default'.

Mr. Tony Banks

I beg to move amendment No. 199, in page 16, line 44, leave out from the beginning to 'to' in line 3 on page 17 and insert— (b) commits any act, or omits to act, or pursues a course of conduct which act, omission or course of conduct is likely to cause the residential occupier of any premises either—

  1. (i) to give up his occupation of the premises or any part thereof, or
  2. (ii) to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the premises or any part thereof,
and such act, omission or course of conduct is likely'

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendment No. 295, amendment No. 200, in page 17, line 34, leave out from 'that' to end of line 39 and insert `the act, omission or course of conduct was the only means by which in all the circumstances he could have secured the health safety and welfare of the residential occupier, or that of the residential occupier of adjacent premises whilst making the least possible infringement of any part of this section in respect of the residential occupier.' Government amendments Nos. 296 and 297 and amendment No. 201, in page 17, line 39, at end insert— '(7A) It should be a defence for such a person to show that the act, omission or course of conduct occurred wholly accidently.

Mr. Banks

As the Minister said, we are dealing with the provisions of the Bill that cover harassment and the illegal eviction of private tenants. Notwithstanding the Minister's remarks and the support given by his hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), Labour Members do not believe that the Government amendments match the promises and good intentions stated in Committee. I do not deny that the Minister has many good intentions in that respect; as Tories go, he is quite a decent sort of fellow. That is probably why he is not going to last much longer at the Department of the Environment. I am sure that one of the main reasons for the excessively large gap between the end of the Committee stage and the beginning of the Report stage is that the Minister has been fighting the Secretary of State tooth and nail to try to give some semblance of reality to the promises that he made in Committee. He has undoubtedly won some minor victories. However, whereas the Minister says that the amendments afford private tenants protection against harassment and illegal eviction, we are absolutely convinced that they do not go far enough to realise the assurances that the Minister gave.

The Government are making much of their stated commitment to make war on bad landlords. I congratulate the Minister on his excellent manipulation of the press in his campaign recently. It would seem that his ability to get good publicity rivals only my own. I read in yesterday's edition of The Guardian, under the heading "Tenants Rights Strengthened", that the Minister was to give tenants new rights. Members of the press would do well to examine the wording of the legislation, which constitutes the enactment of the Government's promises. Of course, I understand that the average journalist was not at the front of the queue when brains were being handed out but if journalists read the Bill and the Government's amendments carefully they will realise that the Government's promises simply do not ring true. I believe that it will be just as hard to prove harassment and illegal eviction and gain compensation for the victims of those evils after the Bill becomes law as it was before.

8.45 pm

In addition, we should bear in mind the Bill's main thrust. It will decontrol the private rented market so that on new lettings landlords will be able to give short-term security under the new regime. They will be able to make shorthold lettings and charge market rents. When a landlord owns two houses side by side, one with a protected tenancy with a fair rent of, say, £40 a week and one with a new shorthold letting at, say £90 a week, there will be a temptation, although I put it no higher than that, to encourage the protected tenant to leave. Some landlords step well over that boundary of temptation and adopt courses of action deliberately designed to get the protected tenants out so that they can charge higher rents.

Hon. Members should bear in mind that that is exactly what happened in 1957 when the Government decontrolled the market in the Rent Act of that year. Many hon. Members have spoken of accounts of the promises and assurances given when that Bill was approaching the statute book. The 1957 Act did not cause a flood of new private rented accommodation to become available. As we know to our cost, and the Government now admit to their shame, it caused a massive increase in harassment epitomised by that evil person, Rachman.

When I spoke to the Opposition's amendments in Committee I began by quoting ministerial statements that showed, as I thought at the time, an honest intention on Ministers' part to tackle the problems of harassment and illegal eviction. On 12 January the Minister said: Bad landlords are in a minority but they form a significant group that must be dealt with. He went on to say: We are agreed on the objective of trying to make life harder for bad landlords".—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 12 January 1988; c. 73–76.] It would appear that we were in agreement in words only because the undertakings given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State that she would examine the concerns expressed in our amendments in Committee do not appear to have given rise to any Government amendment that really answers those concerns. I am not surprised that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has been packed off to Finland. I do not know what she is doing there; perhaps she is studying igloo construction in case there is another winter of discontent. Frankly, our proceedings do not really suffer from the absence of Madam Woodentop. She gave assurances in her hurried attempts to move quickly on to the next brief, to which she stuck rigidly. But perhaps it is rather inelegant to think of the Under-Secretary sticking rigidly to her briefs. She could not understand what was going on. She made promises, hoping that we would then take the heat off and in many cases, in our naivety and gullibility, we believed her, just as we believed the Minister for Housing and Planning. What a lot of trouble that has got us into

Clauses 25 and 26 relate to a new civil claim for damages that arises if certain things happen: it must be a landlord or his agent who acts; the landlord or agent must commit a positive act; that act must interfere with the peace and comfort of the residential occupier; the tenant has to prove that that act was committed with the intention of getting him or her to leave; and finally, as a result of that act, the tenant must actually have left. When all those conditions are proven, a claim for damages arises. As the Minister said, that claim amounts to the difference between the value of the house with tenants and its value with vacant possession. The idea behind that, which Opposition Members fully support, is to confiscate from the landlord the profit from his crime.

We must examine, however, where private tenants' difficulties really lie. I am anxious that the two clauses that create the new claim for damages were frequently used by the Under-Secretary of State as a justification for not tightening the criminal law which we shall be considering under new clause 27. In implying that it would be easy for the tenant to obtain massive amounts of compensation by walking out of his or her accommodation and complaining of some trivial matter, she showed no understanding of harassment and illegal eviction. That is not really surprising, as she comes from Broxbourne. If she came to the London borough of Newham she would see what harassment and illegal eviction mean to people in areas such as the east end of London. As I said, the hon. Lady showed little understanding of the Bill. She certainly showed no understanding of proceedings in court or of the insurmountable difficulties that many tenants face in trying to get any justice whatever from the courts.

The amendments draw attention to the holes in the clause as drafted. One of the problems that we have identified is addressed in amendment No. 199. In the clause as drafted, the landlord must commit a positive act that interferes with the peace and comfort of the tenant and forces him or her to leave the accommodation. I have come across many examples of harassment in my constituency in which no positive act has been involved but the landlord has nevertheless managed to make life extremely uncomfortable for the tenant. I quoted many examples in Committee drawn from my experience in the London borough of Newham. I intend to give a couple more this evening. I shall give only the first initial of the surname but the cases have all come from our housing officers.

Mrs. O is three months pregnant and lives with her husband and child in two rooms in a house in multiple occupation. There is plenty of evidence that the landlord intends her to leave. He has sent letters telling her to leave. He talks loudly in the hallway to other members of his family saying things such as, "I am not having these people in my house. I will get them out one way or another." There are no positive acts that can be linked to that intention. For example, he insists on the rent being paid in cash and will not give her a rent book. The law as it currently stands obliges landlords to supply rent books only to weekly tenants. That is absurd, as I am sure the Minister would agree. That landlord has ripped off the wallpaper in the hallway, has refused to repair the toilet, which does not flush, has refused to pay the gas bill and, as a result, the gas has been disconnected. Indeed, the gas bill was so high that the local authority refused to use its powers under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 to restore the supply. The electricity bill was not paid but, in that instance, the local authority did step in to ensure that the supply continued. Only last week the tenant received a letter from the Thames water authority threatening to distrain for non-payment of the water rates.

All those elements of the harassment of Mrs. O are omissions rather than acts. As we know, courts are interpreters of the literal word of the law in question. They pay no regard to well-intended verbiage from Ministers in Parliament. We know that judges are not permitted to look at Hansard in order to see what was in the minds of Ministers. They would be hard put to find that out as regards the Under-Secretary of State. However, they cannot find out the intentions behind legislation. All they can do is interpret the words of the legislation as it is presented to them.

The first aim of our amendment is to ensure that omissions as well as commissions fall within the remit of the definition of illegal eviction.

Another case in my constituency which did not result in prosecution by the local authority involved a tenant who went into hospital during complications in her pregnancy. While she was away the landlord removed the toilet. When she was to be discharged, the landlord refused to restore the amenities. An omission is not an offence in the criminal law as it stands and, subsequently, no action was taken. The hospital could not allow her to go back into her former accommodation because of the state of it. Therefore, after contacting the local authority the council picked up the client as homeless. The much-maligned local authorities, with all the responsibilities they continually receive from Government, also suffer criticisms and attacks from the Government and journalists.

In the end, it is the local authority that has to pick up the mess created by the social and economic policies of the Government. For example, I noticed that someone was evicted from a property owned by the Prince of Wales. The spokesperson for the Prince of Wales—I am sure that the Prince would not have agreed—said, "It is not our responsibility. Those people were in the accommodation illegally and were squatting." That is now a matter for the local authority and they will be housed as homeless. That is the attitude that even so-called responsible landlords take. One can well imagine the attitude that will be taken by the landlords who will be encouraged by this Bill if it becomes law.

Mr. Winnick

Does my hon. Friend agree that the possibility of harassment along the lines of the cases he has illustrated will become more acute? There are regulated tenants who, quite rightly, have the protection of the law under the Bill. However, once those tenants leave, the property will become deregulated and, as I said earlier, there is every opportunity and every incentive for would-be Rachmans to get the regulated tenants out. Once the accommodation is empty, it can be let at market rents or more or sold off with vacant possession.

Mr. Banks

My hon. Friend knows the Bill well and is an expert on housing. He is absolutely correct. I hope that he will spend some time pointing that out to journalists on The Guardian, who seem to be blinded by the Minister's charisma and ability to dress-up the unacceptable in a way that makes them believe that he has gained great victories for the protection of private tenants when he has done nothing of the sort.

I do not wish to confuse hon. Members by referring to the criminal law and civil law together as if the burden of proof in each case was the same. However, the definition of harassment in both has proved to have common problems when it comes to proving cases in court

Another change proposed by our amendment is that it would include a course of conduct in the list of things that the court may consider, when taken together, to amount to harassment. A case in point occurred in Camden. I have quoted the case before. It involved daily actions of a landlord which wore down the nerves of a middle-aged lady tenant. There were instances where he peered through her windows, stored bicycles in her hallway, complained that she was opening the windows when they should be shut and that they were shut when they should be open. Not one of those incidents would amount to harassment within the definition in clause 25. However, put together they made that tenant's life hell. That is the sort of thing that landlords will get up to. If the Minister is serious about trying to do something about harassment and preventing illegal eviction, he should address his mind to such things. Such things are covered in our amendment.

The second improvement that our amendment brings to clause 25 is that, instead of requiring the tenant to prove that the landlord intended that the tenant should leave, it will be sufficient for the tenant to show that the acts or omissions that constitute harassment were likely to cause a residential occupier to leave.

I should mention Government amendment No. 295 which was tabled yesterday. Think about it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We came out of Committee on 15 March and amendments were being tabled yesterday. What was the reason for the delay if it was not to try to blind us with the sheer weight of the amendments and hope that we would allow these things to go through unchallenged?

Mr. Boateng

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Banks

I know what my hon. Friend is going to say but I do not think I will be able to agree with him.

Mr. Boateng

My hon. Friend attributes malice to the Minister. He might do just as well to attribute incompetence to him and those who serve him.

Mr. Banks

I knew that I would disagree with my hon. Friend. I do not think that the Minister is incompetent. He has many incompetent people around him and his boss, the Secretary of State, is a paragon of incompetence. I believe that there is malice in this. Before you were fortunate enough to come into the Chamber, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we had a great deal of discussion about the fact that this Report stage is not a Report stage in the way that we constitutionally understood a Report stage to be. It is a re-run of the Committee stage. We are considering many matters that were not raised in Committee. I do not want to open up that old wound again. I have no doubt we shall return to it later.

Government amendment No. 295, which was tabled so late yesterday, goes some way down the road that we should like to take. I assume that that is why the Minister was locked in some arm-wrestling with the Secretary of State to table it. We know that the Secretary of State considers the Minister to be an unspeakable wet and a weakling who should be moved over as fast as possible. On that score, the Minister has our complete support. We shall stand shoulder to shoulder with him to resist the Secretary of State.

Government amendment No. 295 removes from clause 25 the most difficult test of requiring the tenant to prove that the landlord intended him to leave. It still requires the tenant to show the landlord's state of mind and that the landlord knew or had reasonable cause to believe that his conduct would cause the tenant to leave. I am pleased that the Government have taken this road, and I hope that they will be able to accept the rest of our argument about the amendment.

I want amendment No. 200 to be regarded as drawing attention to the looseness of the drafting of clause 25. The Government have promised much action against bad landlords and have been getting an unfairly favourable press about it. When the Government's promises are analysed in the text of the Bill, they do not amount to much.

9 pm

Clause 25(7) allows the landlord to raise the defence that he had reasonable cause to believe that the tenant had ceased to reside in the premises. Suppose the landlord waits until the tenant goes on holiday and writes a letter saying: "I think that you have left. If you do not respond within seven days, I shall assume that you have abandoned the premises." He might ask the neighbours "Have you seen Mr. and Mrs. Y?" Does he have reasonable cause to believe that they have left? I hope that the Minister will answer that question, because we need to be able to test the strength of the Government's intentions.

If the landlord has reasonable cause to believe that the tenant has left, he can change the locks, store the tenant's belongings and gain possession. This does not seem to be adequate law. We are asking for the defence that the landlord can raise to be restricted, first, to occasions when he can say that his actions were for the health, safety or welfare of the occupants or neighbours, or, secondly, to occasions when he can say that his actions were wholly accidental, as we propose in amendment No. 201.

In Committee, the Under-Secretary expressed concern that the landlord might need to disconnect services to carry out building works. The Under-Secretary had simple faith in the good intentions of all landlords. She thought that when a landlord broke down the door and regained possession he would do so merely as the act of a kind and charitable person to redecorate the house while the tenant was on holiday. I hope that our amendment will address this problem. It clearly states that where works are necessary to safeguard the health, safety and welfare" of the occupiers or neighbours, that will be an absolute defence to a claim for compensation. Government amendments Nos. 296 and 297 also apply to this part of the Bill.

Harassment and illegal evictions are evils that strike at the heart of a tenant's well-being, comfort, health and security. A person cannot possibly concentrate on work, study, family or leisure if he is constantly in fear of losing his home because of unscrupulous speculation by his landlord. There are many bad landlords. We give examples of only one or two of them, such as Rachman. Rachmanism is alive and well and living in the east end and other parts of London. Indeed, he will thrive and prosper because of the Bill,

If the Minister and the Government are sincere in their wish to control unscrupulous landlords, they should recognise the failings of their proposals to deal with them and honour the commitments that the Minister gave time after time in Committee to strengthen the powers of the law to control the activities of such undesirable people. The Bill will give free rein to bad landlords

Mr. Simon Hughes

; The case for strong law against bad landlords is overwhelming. It is more overwhelming when the rewards to be gained by them are greater. That is the reality of part 1 of the Bill. It will allow landlords to let at enormous rents and to obtain complete possession for development without the courts having discretion. Unless we have completely sound regulations, they will be able to continue to get away with harassment.

The debate is about one issue—where one draws the line in relation to harassment. Amendment No. 199 effectively makes the test objective. It suggests that we insert into clause 25 words that will enable the court to judge whether the act, omission or course of conduct of the landlord is likely to cause somebody to depart.

By contrast, Government amendment No. 95, which I accept is a slight improvement, leaves the test in the mind and therefore subjective in terms of the landlord. The court would still have to find that the landlord knew or had reasonable cause to believe that his conduct was likely to be effective harassment of the tenant.

Absentee landlords or those employing agents or a series of people to "look after" their property could still get away with the sort of activity that I hope the whole House would condemn. That will happen if we do not have a much harder objective test. Although I accept and welcome the concession, a harsher and more objective test is still compatible with what the Minister would wish to see.

Some people leave premises not because of one horrendous event. They do not leave because the landlord came in and issued a single overwhelming threat; nor do they leave because of an incident in the middle of the night. Many of them leave as a result of the cumulative effect of the unacceptable behaviour of the landlord or his agents. Our key task is to make sure we give the courts power to say that any interference with what the common law of England calls the quiet enjoyment of tenants is unacceptable and should allow action and criminal proceeding to be taken against the landlord.

Mr. Boateng

One of the great evils of the legislation that we are considering and which we mulled over for many hours in Committee is not only that it fails to address the difficulties and problems in establishing sufficient grounds to secure conviction in the case of alleged harassment, but that it creates an atmosphere and an environment in which there is every incentive in terms of profit for the bad landlord to flourish. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) showed that quite clearly in his speech. It is in that context that we must look at the amendment and the evil and the mischief that it seeks to address.

When we do that we talk often about Rachman and hark back to a period in the 1950s and 1960s when that landlord was at the height of his infamy. In doing that we overlook the fact that many modern Rachmans are out and about and doing their work in London—even without the provisions in the Bill. That gives us cause for concern about what they are likely to do if the Bill becomes law. If we are unable effectively to control them at present, how can we control them when they are unleashed with the expectation of the profit that the Bill holds out to them?

No doubt the Minister of State has brought forward his safeguards in all good faith, but they will have very little effect. The constraints that exist in the Bill as it stands will not be sufficient to restrain bad landlords. While not going into areas that have already been examined by a jury, it is right that we should name and expose those who are in the business of exploiting and oppressing their tenants—the modern successors to Rachman.

It is right that I should name in this place the landlord who is by far the worst. He is a man called Hoogstraten, who has terrorised a whole section of our community in London by his actions. In relation to the particular incident that I shall relate to the House, I am indebted to the London Housing Forum for its excellent publication "Speaking Out", which gives a voice to the people of London in exposing men such as Hoogstraten. Ms. H, whose case I shall refer to, is entitled to be heard. We must learn lessons from her experience: Ms. H moved to her flat in Edgware Road, Westminster, as a short-term leaseholder only to discover that her head leaseholder was the notorious Hoogstraten. The dispute between them began when the head leaseholder claimed rights over the garden area which has exclusively been used by the occupiers of Ms. H's present flat for the last 20 years, and is included on the land registry map of her flat". Mr. Hoogstraten has a henchman named Bradshaw, who acquired the flat below Ms. H by harassing an elderly man out of the property, who still continued to pay rent, even until his death, though he was not living there. Harassment to persuade Ms. H to give up her rights to the garden then began. All they wanted was her garden. They had to harass this woman of 20 years' occupancy to get it. Ms. H says this about Mr. Hoogstraten: Hoogstraten pushed me and spat in my face, he then pushed me towards my garden door. He accused me of being a prostitute, a cow and a slut. Mr. Bradshaw then said, am moving down there' and pointed to flat A. He also said, `when I move in your life won't be worth living'. I was in a state of shock. Since that initial meeting between Ms. H, Bradshaw and Hoogstraten, other threats and incidents occurred. These have included threats of her 'ending up in a wheelchair', being nailed into her flat with 8" nails, with threats of `cementing her in' to follow. `Bradshaw was constantly banging on my window and doors and threatening me'. One time Bradshaw started piling furniture up outside her backdoor. Ms. H and a friend tried photographing these events by climbing up on to the roof. Bradshaw spotted them and hurled a massive slab of concrete at them. They turned and ducked but it hurt Mr. W's hand, who was consequently badly injured. Ms. H further said: Ever since I met Mr. Hoogstraten and Mr. Bradshaw, I have been in constant fear of their action. I believe their conduct is designed to make me surrender my right to use the rear garden and even to induce me to leave my flat and live elsewhere. As a result of the actions of these two men I have stayed away from my home, lodging with friends, initially for about 6 weeks, and then returning to the flat for a short time only. In addition since the incidents began my health has suffered and most recently has been worsened because of the stress and fear I have to endure. I do not believe for one moment that Ms. H is alone in her complaints against Hoogstraten. There will also be complaints against all the mini-Hoogstratens in our metropolis.

Finally, someone from Westminster council went to examine her flat. When he met Bradshaw, what did Bradshaw do? Men such as Bradshaw and Hoogstraten are so arrogant in their activities in our city that Bradshaw spat in the face of the representative of Westminster city council.

Following this particular incident, two years after all this began, Westminster council at last took action. However, it failed properly to draft the charge. As a result of that, it dropped the case. Ms. H says: I was completely devastated because if we'd got a conviction you feel like you've got protection, but this is like saying that nothing has happened, so carry on harassing". That was Ms. H's experience as she told it to the inquiry of the London Housing Forum. It highlights the Hoogstratens and Bradshaws of this world. Something should be done about such people. They should be named in our newspapers. All sorts of things appear in our newspapers, but not often enough the names of the Hoogstratens and Bradshaws. They should be exposed.

9.15 pm

That evidence not only reveals the activities of those people but says something about the need to ensure that local authorities are in a proper position to respond to such evils and that they get their act together, not only in terms of efficiency, but in terms of the way in which such matters are prosecuted and the zeal with which they are prosecuted, and to ensure that they have the resources to do that.

The reality is that, whatever we pass tonight and even if the Bill is amended at this late stage by the Minister of State accepting our amendment as we urge him to do in London and throughout the country, legal departments, tenancy relations departments and the sections of housing departments that deal specifically with the private sector are being cut, cut and cut again. Unless that is stopped, there is no hope of even putting people in the appalling bed-and-breakfast accommodation in which council's are obliged to place them.

The Minister of State has had cause to say good things about my borough and about the way in which it tries to deal with the problem of homelessness. However, in my borough, the section of the council that deals with private sector housing is facing a cut of more than 60 per cent. in its budget and in the resources that are available to the council for dealing with the problems of private tenants. That is the result of the Government's policies relating to local authorities and their resources. The least that the Government can do on behalf of the people who suffer harassment in the private sector is accept our amendment. We would then not only have rhetoric against the Hoogstratens and the Bradshaws of this world; we would have action also.

Mr. Spearing

My hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) have provided an incontrovertible case for accepting what is, after all, only a modest change to the provisions whereby acts of omission can be included in the court proceedings.

I want to put to the Minister and the House what I believe to be the bare bones of the situation. They must be spelt out because hon. Members and anybody who has listened to the debate must have been gripped by the examples that have been given by my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West and for Brent, South of the relatively small incentives that exist for landlords to get people out of their accommodation.

Clearly, the purpose behind the Bill is greatly to enlarge the differentials between different types of tenure and, therefore, automatically greatly to increase the incentives to people who may be able to change the tenure of one piece of accommodation with a sitting tenant. Those will be the results if the Bill is enacted. That is the logic of the Bill, which, as we demonstrated in Committee, does not provide or encourage the building of any further accommodation. Therefore, the differentials will increase and the premium on a "void", as I believe it is technically known in the housing world, will be that much greater. If I can use a well-known word to the Government, the return or reward for "enterprise" will be vastly enhanced.

I started to be involved in politics at a constituency level before the Milner Holland report and before the operations of Mr. Rachman and his cohorts were halted. I hope that the Minister will tell us how far the recommendations of that report will be covered by the Bill. The matter may have been discussed in Committee, but unless the findings of the Milner Holland committee are properly covered, and I very much doubt that they were, what is to prevent a return of the terrible things that happened in the late 1950s which were uncovered by that report?

I remind the Government that much of the Rachman operation happened in north Kensington, a place where political questions will be raised and choices made very shortly. It will be a good thing for some people to look at the Milner Holland report and see what was going on then. Will the Minister say whether the new law will cover the recommendations of that report?

I was involved in trying to help people who were being harassed. My hon. Friends have mentioned one or two examples. All sorts of relatively small things can happen. If I were a landlord, I might well be able to tell the tenant that I wanted to inspect the property or come in to see whether I was going to put in some new cupboards. I might go along at 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock at night or send along someone to whom I had given a letter of authority.

There are terrible problems with multi-occupancy. Multi-occupancy may not be quite as common as it once was, but many council houses still in municipal ownership which were bought up quite properly to house the homeless are multi-occupied and if they revert to private ownership, multi-occupancy and the evils that go with it in respect of harassment will return. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South said, when there is multi-occupancy and an interest, all sorts of curious things can happen. Faults can occur in electricity supplies and gas taps and appliances are mysteriously switched on. Dustbins are sometimes overturned.

Some of us could just about cope with that, but the problem is that such landlords go for elderly people, and often elderly women living alone. They were the victims and I fear that they may be again. Cisterns mysteriously and constantly overflow, not always outside down the pipe; water comes down in awkward places at awkward times. I am giving a list of only some of the more obvious things. I do not want to take various ideas too far, but such actions were rife years ago and they still happen in certain places. Those are milder forms of harassment.

Mr. McCartney

In my constituency there is a Rachman landlord called Mr. Morrissey who owns houses in Platt Bridge and Abram. He recently had the electricity cut off to a multi-occupancy housing arrangement. When the residents approached me and the local authority for assistance, and the electricity board was called in to investigate, it was discovered that that Rachman landlord had attached the electricity to the outside street lamp and had been fiddling the electricity board, despite the fact that some tenants had been paying money into a meter in some rooms and other tenants had been paying him cash each week. The local authority stepped in in an emergency. Families and elderly people were without heating and lighting and without any basics because of the Rachmanlike activity of such a landlord. Unless the Government give the amendments active consideration, I suspect that that will continue and increase.

Mr. Spearing

I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right.

My second point is that in east London where the City style of living is moving eastwards, the differential between born and bred Londoners in traditional communities and people who are able to afford higher rents is becoming increasingly acute.

The London Docklands development corporation is producing luxury developments on the opposite side of the road to large council estates. Many people, particularly those in Newham, will not necessarily take up such opportunities, if they get them. The original landlords may be all right, but we do not know to whom they will sell. A filtering mechanism is written into the Bill, but only for the initial landlord. As far as I know, there is nothing for years to come about changes in the ownership of premises which are initially sold to approved persons. The constraints that the Minister thinks he has in the Bill may operate for owner No. 1, but as the property market zooms on, as it might well do, what is to prevent owners Nos. 3 and 4 from being of a different character? No legislation produced by this House or the other place could prevent a decline in standards in that respect.

Where there is a change of living style, the incentive for people to adopt even relatively mild practices grows greater. Accidents happen to cars, dogs appear in the street, people return to find windows broken and even the safety of children is in question. That is the sort of rag-bag private enterprise that we do not wish to see and I am sure that the Minister does not wish to see it either.

In view of the framing of the Bill and the way economics work, the Minister must include much stronger protection in the law, and I do not believe that he is doing so. Therefore, he should accept the Opposition amendment. Unless he does, the protections that he has in mind will not only not do the job now, but will not even move in that direction.

I have been having meetings with constituents about the Bill and at one somebody said, "What will the Government have us do? Camp out in Epping Forest?" Unless we are to have that, we must have the protections because we want to keep our traditional community in east London. Unless those protections are included in the Bill, there will be big trouble indeed.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

I was not a member of the Committee but I should like to say a few words about harassment and the problems facing private tenants.

My constituency has enormous housing stress, high unemployment and, paradoxically, an incredibly rapid increase in land and house prices. We are facing the sort of problem that we thought had gone away in the mid-1970s when protection from eviction, rent controls and protection of private tenants were introduced. Now we have such rapidly increasing house prices that landlords, who previously were relatively happy to let out part or all of their house as bed-sits, realise that they can make an absolute killing by evicting tenants or encouraging them to leave, and selling the property for redevelopment into so-called luxury flats, often of inferior workmanship.

Whatever the Minister may say about the codes of practice, recommendations and advice that he would give to landlords, he is deliberately encouraging a market economy and a property boom in London and the south-east. The victims are private tenants who are forced out of places where they have often lived for many years. If, instead of going straight home in his ministerial car tonight, the Minister stopped by Charing Cross station or crossed the bridge to Waterloo station and asked some of the poor people sleeping in cardboard boxes tonight, which is not a cold night, why they became homeless, he would find that many had had private tenancies which they lost. Because they were single people they were not eligible for rehousing by the appropriate local authority under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. They then went to bed and breakfast accommodation or tried to get lodgings of other sorts, and could not afford it. The property boom caught up with them and they were forced out of yet another place. Eventually they ended up homeless, sleeping on the streets, an absolute disgrace to this country and to the Government who put them on to the streets in the first place.

I hope that the Minister will recognise that, unless the tightest and strongest form of protection is given to all private tenants, as long as this property boom lasts they are the people who are vulnerable. It is not the articulate, able people who are able to use the law and get advice who suffer most. As my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) have pointed out, it is often the old, the single and the vulnerable who are eased out by landlords, possibly in breach of existing law and of this law, because local authorities lack the resources to give them the back-up necessary and advice bureaux and law centres are under pressure for lack of funding. These are the people who are the victims of a horrible mixture of public spending cuts that take away the carefully constructed support mechanisms of the past 20 years and encourage a property boom in which such people are discarded, considered worthless and left to sleep on the streets.

The country deserves better of the House than to have those protections taken away. The House owes the people absolute and total protection from the ruthless Rachmans who are at this very moment licking their fingers with glee because they know that once this Bill has gone through, once the Finance Bill has gone through and once the business expansion scheme gravy train has got going they will make a fortune out of the misery of people living in private rented accommodation and soon to become unprotected, many of whom will end up living on the streets. Is that the kind of city and the kind of Government of which the Minister ought to be proud to be a member?

I hope that the House will support the Opposition's amendment and understand that we are serious about protecting the most vulnerable in our society, who at the moment are private sector tenants.

Mr. Waldegrave

No one doubts the sincerity or passion of many Opposition Members in drawing attention to the abuses which exist. It was—perhaps unusually for me—the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) who seemed to put his finger on the problem and in some sense to knock down one of the arguments put forward by some of his hon. Friends, including tile hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), because these abuses are happening now. They are a product of the fact that for those renting accommodation there is no way of getting a return except by selling with vacant possession. That means that the minority of ruthless and wicked landlords follow that route, because they, like other landlords who do not follow that route, value vacant possession above all.

I am not arguing that the change in this Bill in itself makes this position either better or worse. It is the gap between the value of the property if the potentially statutorily protected tenant is not there and a free market that causes either loss if the landlord behaves well, or abuse if the landlord behaves badly. I will not disagree about that, but it is not logical to argue that by making it profitable for there to be private rented accommodation at market rents one is making matters worse. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Walsall, North and in the constituency of Newham——

Mr. Winnick

rose——

Mr. Waldegrave

I think that the hon. Member had quite a good go—or any other area where house prices are moving up quickly these pressures are brought to bear. The only way to deal with them is to try to provide for the people in those areas who need housing within the housing association or council sector at rents that can be afforded. But that need is not met, as his party has shown since Milner Holland, by rent control, because this has produced these problems.

I am not going to be so rash as to refer off the top of my head to all the recommendations of Milner Holland. However, insofar as those recommendations were carried into force in the Labour Government's 1965 Act, we are going further in a number of respects, and that will be welcomed.

Mr. Winnick

It is perfectly true, as the Minister said, that abuses already occur. My hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) gave that as one reason for homelessness. However, does the Minister not recognise that he will make the situation worse, and that the incentive for abuse will be even greater? If a property can be re-let at market rent once a regulated tenant leaves, there will be a tremendous incentive for would-be Rachmans.

Mr. Waldegrave

The hon. Member for Walsall, North has missed the point. As his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said, that incentive already exists. If anything, that incentive will be diminished because there will be the possibility of obtaining a tenancy at a market rent. Putting aside the impressive speech of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), it is important to consider whether the proposed amendments will actually introduce the kind of safeguards that Opposition Members want, make the law work better, and ensure the successful conviction of people who are difficult to convict at present.

In an area where the abuses are so horrible, it is difficult to look coolly at the law and I understand the passion felt by Opposition Members in that respect. However, it is an old saying that hard cases make bad law and so we must coolly consider whether we are making changes which will work. There is a strong case for saying that we have done so.

The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) laid about him and said that a whole range of people, from The Guardian to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, did not understand anything about this subject. That is unfair, and it may be that they understand our proposals more clearly than the hon. Gentleman. The difference between the proposals of Opposition Members and our own is not quite so great as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West believes.

The starting point for all of this is the definitions in the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, which refer to acts calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort and so on, which are the words we have adopted for the Bill. The withdrawal of services, which is a technique to which one hon. Member referred, is specifically mentioned in all three provisions. It is clear to my advisers that courses of actions are included within the meaning of the word "acts" in this context, and could make the person guilty of harassment open to prosecution—there is no question about that.

Clauses 25 and 27 of the Bill use the words acts calculated to interfere with", which clearly includes a course of conduct; the legal advice on that point is perfectly clear.

Turning to amendment No. 199, is it right that a landlord could be liable to damages—which, rightly, could be very large if he were properly convicted—if he did not intend to evict the tenant, did not know that his tenant would leave, and had no reasonable cause to believe that such would happen? Imagine the absurdity of a case where the prosecution could succeed, which would produce injustice the other way. We are no less keen to ensure convictions, but if we produce a law so draconian that it falls into disrepute and must be amended the other way, we shall not have done anything very sensible.

We began by committing ourselves to the scope of clause 25 and the capacity to secure convictions. The concept of intent was put to us but—and we sympathised with this—intent was too difficult to prove. Our amendments in clause 27 to the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 widen the scope to cover acts which the landlord knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, might cause a tenant to leave his home. Those could be just the courses of action and types of conduct to which Opposition Members have referred. That is why, by amendment 295, we are widening the scope of clause 25. I had hoped that Opposition Members would support that amendment because I am advised that it would help considerably to make convictions achievable.

Amendment No. 297 provides an additional defence for a landlord who can be sued for damages under the clause. Although it is unpopular to say so, occasionally the tenant harasses the landlord. Unlike the cases quoted tonight, I have had one or two in my constituency the other way round. We must not inadvertently cause injustice the other way. A landlord may withdraw services for reasons which are outside his control or which are not his fault. We should allow him to have a defence which the clause, as it stands, does not provide.

The changes which we have made will be shown to be important when cases are brought. Under the existing rents legislation we have had the very conditions which have caused some of the appalling cases that Opposition Members have rightly described. Some of the names that have been mentioned are famous. It has been depressing that we have not had enough convictions in the courts to drive those people out of business.

All the advice I have received strengthens my belief that the additional changes we are making will be beneficial. Let us not forget that in the first place we put a huge new power in the Bill—the right for a person to get damages if he can show that he has been evicted. That is an addition to the armoury. The changes will enable major steps to be taken to rid the country of some of the practices about which Opposition Members have rightly complained. I commend the Government amendments to the House.

Mr. Tony Banks

On behalf of the Opposition, I accept the good intentions of the Minister. We did that throughout the Committee stage, but I am afraid that good intentions are not enough. The Minister perhaps does not understand. Perhaps the sort of things that are going on are beyond his experience. The actions committed by landlords that are not caught by the Bill amount to harassment by another name. Far from being the odd dramatic example, the cases that we have quoted are symptomatic of conduct in many parts of the country, particularly in the decaying inner cities and in places where houses are in multiple occupation.

The Minister must understand that we are not trying to take an entrenched position. We are not saying that all landlords must by definition be in the wrong. The Minister knows that we are not comparing equal parties. The average landlord is in an immensely more powerful position than the average tenant. Therefore, the ability of the landlord to harass is inevitably far greater than that of the tenant to make trouble for the landlord. No doubt we could all point to one or two isolated examples of the latter, but we will come to them later.

Once again, good intentions do not necessarily make good legislation unless they are turned into cast-iron guarantees and assurances within the Bill. On this part of the Bill the assurances have not turned into guarantees. Therefore, we will press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 211.

Division No. 347] [9.43 pm
AYES
Adams, Allen (Paisley N) Darling, Alistair
Allen, Graham Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Anderson, Donald Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Armstrong, Hilary Dewar, Donald
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Dixon, Don
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) Doran, Frank
Barron, Kevin Dunnachie, Jimmy
Battle, John Eastham, Ken
Beckett, Margaret Evans, John (St Helens N)
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) Fatchett, Derek
Bermingham, Gerald Fearn, Ronald
Bidwell, Sydney Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Blair, Tony Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Boateng, Paul Fisher, Mark
Boyes, Roland Flynn, Paul
Bradley, Keith Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Bray, Dr Jeremy Foster, Derek
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E) Foulkes, George
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E) Fyfe, Maria
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith) Galbraith, Sam
Buchan, Norman Galloway, George
Buckley, George J. Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Callaghan, Jim George, Bruce
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) Godman, Dr Norman A.
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) Gordon, Mildred
Campbell-Savours, D. N. Graham, Thomas
Canavan, Dennis Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) Grocott, Bruce
Clay, Bob Harman, Ms Harriet
Clwyd, Mrs Ann Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Cohen, Harry Heffer, Eric S.
Cook, Robin (Livingston) Henderson, Doug
Corbyn, Jeremy Hinchliffe, David
Cousins, Jim Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Crowther, Stan Holland, Stuart
Cryer, Bob Home Robertson, John
Cummings, John Hood, Jimmy
Cunliffe, Lawrence Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Cunningham, Dr John Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Howells, Geraint O'Neill, Martin
Hughes, John (Coventry NE) Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Patchett, Terry
Hughes, Roy (Newport E) Pike, Peter L.
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) Prescott, John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark) Primarolo, Dawn
Illsley, Eric Quin, Ms Joyce
Ingram, Adam Radice, Giles
Janner, Greville Randall, Stuart
John, Brynmor Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn) Reid, Dr John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W) Richardson, Jo
Kennedy, Charles Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Leadbitter, Ted Robertson, George
Leighton, Ron Robinson, Geoffrey
Lestor, Joan (Eccles) Rogers, Allan
Lewis, Terry Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) Rowlands, Ted
Loyden, Eddie Ruddock, Joan
McAllion, John Sedgemore, Brian
McAvoy, Thomas Sheerman, Barry
McCartney, Ian Short, Clare
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West) Skinner, Dennis
McKelvey, William Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
McLeish, Henry Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
McNamara, Kevin Snape, Peter
McTaggart, Bob Soley, Clive
Madden, Max Spearing, Nigel
Mahon, Mrs Alice Steinberg, Gerry
Marek, Dr John Stott, Roger
Marshall, David (Shettleston) Strang, Gavin
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn) Straw, Jack
Martlew, Eric Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Maxton, John Turner, Dennis
Meale, Alan Wall, Pat
Michael, Alun Wallace, James
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) Wareing, Robert N.
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute) Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce Wigley, Dafydd
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby) Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Morgan, Rhodri Winnick, David
Morley, Elliott Wise, Mrs Audrey
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Worthington, Tony
Mowlam, Marjorie Wray, Jimmy
Mullin, Chris
Nellist, Dave Tellers for the Ayes:
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Frank Cook.
O'Brien, William
NOES
Adley, Robert Budgen, Nicholas
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Burns, Simon
Amess, David Burt, Alistair
Amos, Alan Butler, Chris
Arbuthnot, James Butterfill, John
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Ashby, David Carrington, Matthew
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) Carttiss, Michael
Baldry, Tony Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Banks, Robert (Harrogate) Chapman, Sydney
Batiste, Spencer Churchill, Mr
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Bendall, Vivian Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Bevan, David Gilroy Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John Colvin, Michael
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter Conway, Derek
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Boscawen, Hon Robert Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Boswell, Tim Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Bottomley, Peter Couchman, James
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Cran, James
Bowis, John Currie, Mrs Edwina
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes Curry, David
Brazier, Julian Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Bright, Graham Davis, David (Boothferry)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Day, Stephen
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) Devlin, Tim
Browne, John (Winchester) Dickens, Geoffrey
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) Dicks, Terry
Dorrell, Stephen Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Dover, Den Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Dunn, Bob Needham, Richard
Durant, Tony Neubert, Michael
Dykes, Hugh Nicholls, Patrick
Emery, Sir Peter Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Evennett, David Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Fallon, Michael Oppenheim, Phillip
Farr, Sir John Page, Richard
Favell, Tony Paice, James
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Fookes, Miss Janet Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Forman, Nigel Porter, David (Waveney)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Powell, William (Corby)
Forth, Eric Price, Sir David
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman Redwood, John
Franks, Cecil Renton, Tim
Freeman, Roger Rhodes James, Robert
French, Douglas Riddick, Graham
Fry, Peter Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Gale, Roger Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Gardiner, George Rost, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan Rowe, Andrew
Gill, Christopher Ryder, Richard
Goodlad, Alastair Scott, Nicholas
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles Shaw, David (Dover)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Gow, Ian Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Greenway, John (Ryedale) Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Gregory, Conal Sims, Roger
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E') Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) Soames, Hon Nicholas
Grist, Ian Speller, Tony
Ground, Patrick Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn Squire, Robin
Hampson, Dr Keith Stanbrook, Ivor
Hanley, Jeremy Stanley, Rt Hon John
Hannam, John Steen, Anthony
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn) Stern, Michael
Harris, David Stevens, Lewis
Hawkins, Christopher Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Hayes, Jerry Stokes, John
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney Sumberg, David
Hayward, Robert Summerson, Hugo
Heathcoat-Amory, David Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Heddle, John Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Hind, Kenneth Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Holt, Richard Temple-Morris, Peter
Hordern, Sir Peter Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Howard, Michael Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) Townend, John (Bridlington)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford) Tracey, Richard
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) Tredinnick, David
Hunt, David (Wirral W) Trippier, David
Hunter, Andrew Trotter, Neville
Irvine, Michael Twinn, Dr Ian
Irving, Charles Viggers, Peter
Jack, Michael Waddington, Rt Hon David
Janman, Tim Waldegrave, Hon William
Key, Robert Walden, George
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) Walker, Bill (T'side North)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater) Waller, Gary
Knowles, Michael Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman Watts, John
Lawrence, Ivan Wells, Bowen
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Wheeler, John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Widdecombe, Ann
Lord, Michael Wood, Timothy
Maclean, David Woodcock, Mike
Major, Rt Hon John Yeo, Tim
Maples, John Young, Sir George (Acton)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick Tellers for the Noes:
Meyer, Sir Anthony Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Alan Howarth.
Miscampbell, Norman

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 295, in page 16, line 44, leave out 'with intent' and insert `knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the conduct is likely'.

No. 264, in page 17, line 10, after 'landlord', insert 'in default'.

No. 296, in page 17, line 35, after 'believe', insert `(a)'.

No. 297, in page 17, line 39, at end add 'or (b) that, where the liability would otherwise arise by virtue only of the withdrawal or withholding of services, he had reasonable grounds for withdrawing or witholding the services in question.'.

No. 265, in page 17, line 48, at end insert `and any superior landlord under whom that person derives title'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Forward to