RIGHT TO REQUEST REVIEW OF DECISION TO SEEK POSSESSION (Hansard, 30 April 1996)

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
I beg to move amendment No. 154, in page 70, line 36, leave out 'a' and insert 'an independent'.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 155, in page 70, leave out lines 40 to 44.

§ Mr. Hughes
Amendments Nos. 154 and 155 would apply to the part of the Bill dealing with the conduct of tenants and introductory tenancies. The Bill, as currently drafted, provides that if possession proceedings are started under section 109, the tenant shall be told that he or she has a right to request a review of the landlord's decision to seek an order for possession by serving a notice Amendment No. 154 would change "a" review into "an independent" review and amendment No. 155 would delete clause 110(2), which as currently drafted provides that the review is carried out by the landlord in such manner as it considers appropriate The tenant must also be notified.
The defect of the present system is that we would leave it to the landlord to carry out the review, but it is the landlord who is taking the possession proceedings. The landlord may also carry out the review in a way that it considers appropriate. That gives all the power and all the cards to the landlord and no power and none of the cards to the introductory tenant. All I ask is that we allow the review to be independent, for the protection of the tenant. I cannot believe that a reasonable landlord would object and, in equity, I hope that my amendments will be easily and readily accepted.

§ Mr. Gwilym Jones
Amendments Nos. 154 and 155 seek to ensure that the review is independent of the local 1005 authority, although they do not specify who will carry out such a review. Authorities will seek to evict a tenant only when anti-social behaviour justifies such action. Clause 109(3) provides that the notice seeking possession spells out the reasons why the tenant is being asked to leave. He will then have 14 days to seek a review.
We shall issue comprehensive guidance on introductory tenancies, to ensure that authorities have in place a fair and equitable system. The review procedure should clearly be carried out by an independent person or body within the council—not by anyone who was involved in the original decision to begin the eviction proceedings. I do not believe that an independent body could improve on that. Local authorities will have to have fair and rigorous procedures in place to ensure that tenants are not treated unfairly. As with all such matters, there is always the risk of judicial review of the local authorities' actions if they have not been exercised properly or reasonably. I do not believe that local authorities will take that risk.
The issue is whether a tenant should be allowed to continue living in council accommodation and the best judge of that must be the authority itself.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
The Minister has made his case and the guidelines will doubtless be helpful, but he must accept that—from the point of view of the tenant—justice has not only to be done but to be seen to be done. If the landlord evicts a tenant, the fact that somebody else employed by the landlord will carry out a review is not persuasive.
I must tell the Minister that people do not believe in the independence of a review behind closed doors. He has not said whether the review will be in public, whether there will be a time for people to put evidence to the review and whether the tenant may bring somebody with him to argue the case. Constituents regularly come to tell me that a review is to take place in four days, and that it will be carried out by another officer from the same department—a colleague of the person who made the original decision. That officer is therefore not entirely independent.
The Minister's argument is not persuasive. Even with the guidelines that the Minister promised, the provision is supportive of landlords and not helpful to tenants. I do not feel able to seek leave to withdraw the amendment, and it would not be in the interests of tenants for me to do so. I hope that the Government will think again and ensure that the review is properly independent.
The Minister said that I have not specified who should carry out the review. As the Minister will know, I have not specified anyone in the amendments in order to allow a greater opportunity for somebody to be designated. There are plenty of people available, and the Government regularly set up independent agencies. It is entirely possible for the review to be done by an independent agency. We must move away from the position in housing law in which the judge and the jury are the same body.