HOUSING BILL (Hansard, 4 June 1964)

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR)
When the Committee adjourned a day or two ago, your Lordships were considering Amendment No. 62 to Clause 69. That Amendment has already been moved, and the Question now before the Committee is that this Amendment be agreed to.

§ LORD SILKIN
I should like, first of all, to give my thanks to the Government for agreeing last Tuesday to postpone consideration of this Amendment, which concerns a most important question that we have to consider on this Bill. We were at the end of a rather trying day, and I thought it would be desirable that we should all think about this particular question once more in the two days that have elapsed. I should also like to explain that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who was answering on this point last time was courteous enough to telephone me this morning to say that he would not be able to be present at the beginning of this discussion but hoped to be here later.
To come back to the Amendment, I can summarise the issue before the House in a few words. Everybody who dealt with this on Second Reading was in favour of this Bill dealing with the question of what is commonly known as Rachmanism—that is, intimidation by violence, or causing a nuisance in some other way, in relation to tenants who are unable to help themselves in such a way as to cause them to give up possession of their own accord, instead of going through the normal procedure of the courts to obtain possession. There is no doubt that all of us were under the impression that this Bill dealt with that subject, and was intended to do so. Apart from speeches from this side of 594 the House, the noble Lord, Lord Molson, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, all took the view that this Bill dealt with the subject of Rachmanism. I myself was in some doubt as to whether under the terms of Clause 76 the question was adequately covered, and this Amendment was put down in order to make sure that in fact it really was covered.
In reply to the debate on Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said—and I do not want to quote him in full, but if he thinks that I am quoting him unfairly I hope he will tell me [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 257 (No. 67), col. 958]: The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, doubted whether there were sufficient powers in the Bill for bringing about what he, and I think all of us, wish to see, particularly where there are cases of intimidation, and even violence and threats and so on. I think my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross was right in this when he directed attention to Clause 69 which says, and I quote"— and I will not quote it now because it is actually in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, then went on to say: That clause is widely drawn so as to give the maximum scope to the local authority to act quickly and effectively. I agree that it is widely drawn and it might be regarded as giving effective powers to local authorities if it were drawn in a satisfactory way. I intervened later on and said (col. 959): My Lords, if the only difference between us now is whether the particular words in the Bill meet the case, then I take it that we can discuss them in Committee and, if necessary, include new words to make that abundantly clear. But at the moment I have some doubts about that. and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, replied that he entirely agreed with me, but thought it necessary to explain it. So I was under the impression in putting down my Amendment that we were all in agreement that we wanted to deal with this evil in the Bill, and this is the purpose of my Amendment.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, replied to my speech on the Amendment. What his speech amounted to was, first, that my Amendment was imperfect and he gave his reasons for saying that. But he went on to say that, in any case, there were other ways of dealing with this evil outside the Bill: for instance, the 595 local authority could obtain a compulsory purchase order or the tenants could go to the courts, which implied that the Bill was not the right place to deal with it. I want to challenge that. We have this Bill before us and this is the right place to deal with the evil, as was understood by everybody who spoke, including the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. Therefore, I am moving my Amendment with the object of seeing whether or not it is established beyond all doubt that this is an evil which can be dealt with under the Bill, so that the local authority can make a control order, enter into possession at once and put itself in the position of the landlord if it is satisfied that the evil arises.
I should like to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, whether it is still the position that we intend to deal with this evil in this Bill. Will he say whether he considers the words in the Bill to be satisfactory to deal with the evil and enable the local authority to make a control order if it is satisfied that there is intimidation or there are other acts which interfere with the quiet enjoyment of the tenancy by the tenant, or whether he agrees with his noble friend Lord Jellicoe that this Bill is not the right place to deal with it? If he agrees with me that the matter should be dealt with in this Bill, I am prepared to discuss with him the question of whether the language of my Amendment is or is not satisfactory. If it is not satisfactory, I would ask the noble Lord to put down an Amendment on the Report stage which would make it clear beyond doubt that this evil can be dealt with in this Bill by means of a local authority control order. If his view now, contrary to what he told us earlier, is that this is not the right place to deal with it, then I would presume to disagree with him, and the Committee must decide for itself whether or not it wants Rachmanism dealt with in this Bill. That is all I propose to say at this moment, but I should like to discuss the language of the Amendment if the noble Lord agrees with me that it is appropriate to deal with the matter in this Bill.

§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS)
Before we proceed further, my noble friend Lord Derwent 596 would like to make a statement. I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved that the House do now resume.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.