FURTHER OFFENCE OF HARASSMENT (Hansard, 9 June 1988)

§ Mr. Tony Banks
I beg to move amendment No. 203, in page 18, line 41, leave out 'does acts calculated' and insert 'commits any act or omits to act or pursues any course of conduct, which act, omission, or course of conduct is likely.'

§ Mr. Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 204, in page 19, line 5, leave out 'he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that'. No. 205, in page 19, leave out lines 10 to 14, and insert — '(3B) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (3A) above—

(a) to prove that 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 the residential occupier; or

(b) to show that the act, omission or course of conduct occurred wholly accidentally'.

§ Mr. Banks
The amendments create a criminal offence of harassment where the landlord knew or had reasonable cause to believe that his actions would lead to the tenant leaving. The amendments are similar to ones that we tabled to clause 25, which creates a new civil claim for damages, so I do not intend to linger on the arguments.
We are now discussing the criminal law, so the prosecution must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. We therefore have that safeguard against frivolous prosecutions of trivial matters. We must ensure that we give adequate safeguards to vulnerable tenants against bad landlords.
The Bill is generous to landlords in the extreme. For new lettings, they can charge market rents, and if they let on shorthold agreements they can recover possession any time after the end of the initial period of the tenancy, which can be as little as six months. If landlords abuse the legal procedures whereby they can recover possession of their property with comparative ease, which is what the Bill is about, there can be no excuse for them. Only an irresponsible landlord would ignore the new powers that give him such a free hand in court and choose instead to inhabit the twilight land of winkling tenants out, which we believe will happen under the Bill. One must ask why they feel unable to entertain the scrutiny of the courts in their actions for possession. For example, are they avoiding tax or are they involved in mortgage fraud? There can only be a shady and unpleasant reason why they would not use the legal powers that they have been given with such a generous hand by the Government.
I ask the Minister to give something, however small, to tenants who at present are protected but who inevitably will become the targets of unscrupulous landlords seeking to get them out to let the property on new decontrolled rents, and to the new assured and shorthold tenants, who will have so few rights.
1097 In the amendments we are asking for the bare minimum. Amendment No. 203 asks not only that positive acts should amount to criminal offences but the other methods of harassment that are employed by landlords in my constituency and others. Hon. Members have given such examples, and the Minister openly accepted that they happen because he knew that we had not made them up. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) gave a litany based on his experiences of the east end and the devices that unscrupulous landlords use.
Amendment No. 204 asks the court to deduce that the likely consequences of the landlord's actions would be that the tenant would have to leave. The court would be able to examine the proximity of the events to the result and decide whether there is a causal link between them. I do not think that, as the Under-Secretary said in Committee, we shall have hundreds of poor innocent landlords in the dock as a result of that change. Proper evidence would still have to be presented to the court and the magistrate would have to decide whether the case was proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Evidently, for once, Labour Members have more faith in the court system than the Minister and the Government.
Amendment No. 205 tries to define the reasonable defences that a landlord may raise. We do not wish to penalise a landlord who is making proper arrangements to do repairs. It would be nonsense to do so and we made that clear in Committee and now on Report. I regret that that is the easiest way to harass a tenant but not be caught.
I should be interested to hear what other reasonable courses of conduct the Government suggest a landlord might take and risk committing the offence of harassment. Our amendment reasonably lists the appropriate defences that a landlord might use. It gives a clear signal to landlords that conduct that interferes with the peace and comfort of tenants is not acceptable to Labour Members or, I hope, to the Government.

§ Mr. Winnick
It is always a pleasure to intervene after a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and I know that he always appreciates my interventions—or so he tells me.
10.15 pm
There has been a great deal of publicity and we have already heard in the debate about the Minister's wish to protect tenants and about the legal steps in the Bill. If the Minister is really determind to stamp out the type of Rachmanism about which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West has just spoken, our amendments would be accepted. I know the views of the Secretary of State and that the amendments are not acceptable to the Government. Perhaps I am wrong but I suspect that the Minister's boss rather than the Minister has vetoed the amendments. The Minister is considered to be something of a wet in such matters and perhaps he would have recognised our genuine concern and accepted that what we are asking for is modest.
I should like to repeat the point that I made earlier. These amendments are necessary for the protection of tenants who will become assured tenants and even more necessary for people who will become shorthold tenants. One of our worries, understandable in view of what occurred under the Tory's 1957 Act, is the present position of regulated tenants. The Minister has dismissed my anxiety and has said that some abuse is occurring now. We 1098 recognise that, but tenants who remain regulated when the Bill becomes law will contine to have their rents regulated and they will not be market rents.
Many such tenants, especially in places such as London, will be at great risk from their landlords. That is because the landlords will know that their tenants can be forced out legally and that the houses can he rented out again at market rents. The lettings would automatically be on market rents and on assured tenancies or, more than likely, on shorthold tenancies. That is all the more reason why tenants who will continue to have protection and who have every right to remain in their accommodation should be protected in law. The entire answer to giving such protection would be to leave the situation as it is.
There is no doubt that the Bill will become law. An amendment that will protect the interests of regulated tenants and enable them to remain in their accommodation within the law is certainly welcome. Such an amendment would prevent tenants from ending up in squalid accommodation or in bed-and-breakfast hostels.

§ Mr. Waldegrave
I strongly disagree with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that the best thing to do and the solution to all the problems is to leave things as they are. As some of his hon. Friends have eloquently explained, the present situation is far from satisfactory.
We looked again at this after a similar discussion in Committee. The amendment proposes an incredibly wide automatic use of the criminal law. A landlord who does not repair a dwelling and thereby causes the tenant to leave would not have to know that the tenant intended to leave. He would find himself committing an offence even if he did not know the outcome of his actions. Amendment No. 205 provides a defence, but it is very narrow and one must remember that we cannot introduce the full panoply of' the criminal law without very great care.
It would be quite wrong to introduce a criminal offence that could be proved almost automatically by the omission of something. In many cases the landlord would not have had any intention of committing an offence nor any knowledge of the tenant's reaction. It is not enough just to say that, if he proves that it was accidental, he has a defence. He has to know what would be in the tenant's mind. If he guesses wrong, he finds himself in gaol for a criminal offence. I think that this is too wide.

§ Mr. Tony Banks
It is not as if the tenant will go to court, and the landlord will automatically be locked up or penalised, simply because the tenant attends. The Minister makes it sound as though it would be a matter of straightforward procedure and that the tenant will prove the point in that way. The whole idea of this going through the courts is that one has to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. We have some faith in the courts and, therefore, if the case being mounted by the tenant does not stand up, of course the magistrate will not find in favour of the tenant. I do not think it is automatic.

§ Mr. Waldegrave
With respect, the hon. Gentleman is defining a possible criminal act which in the words of his own amendment would be committed if the person acts or omits to act or pursues any course of conduct, which act, omission, or course of conduct is likely to have the effect of making the tenant leave.
I agree that the conviction is not automatic, but the commission of the offence is, which is what we must be 1099 concerned about in the House. It is then up to the police to catch the criminal. The landlord would automatically have committed a criminal offence without having any intention of damaging the tenant. It really is too wide.
There are problems here about not getting the repairs done. I argue that that is not an issue where we should use the criminal law. Rather, we should strengthen, as we are strengthening elsewhere, the capacity of local authorities to make stiffer repair orders and so forth that can be properly designed to deal with that problem.