Section 21 Evictions

Debate between Alex Chalk and Wera Hobhouse

Thursday 6th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to say a few words with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) for her excellent speech. I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I wanted to say that I find it very powerful, and I personally am persuaded that this is something we need to look at again. I should declare an interest: my brother, my sister and I are joint landlords of a cottage just outside my constituency. I wanted to give a few words of perspective.

First, it is worth emphasising that a house is not like any other commodity: it is not like anything else that one might consume. It is a matter of supreme, central importance to the security of individuals, their sense of wellbeing and their mental health. In those circumstances, it is critically important that we have a framework in place that ensures that on the one hand, there is a sufficient pipeline of that essential resource, and on the other, the pipeline is regulated in a way that is fair to all parties, particularly those who dwell in those houses.

It would be unfair to suggest that we have not come an awfully long way, and this Government can take some credit for the extent to which they have properly rebalanced the tenant-landlord relationship. I am thinking, of course, about the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Bill: it is axiomatic that homes should be fit for human habitation, and I am glad that that Bill will be in statute. I am also glad that there is a more rigorous system of penalties for rogue landlords who act in a capricious and vicious way, or do not take proper account of the wellbeing of their tenants. I am thinking, of course, about legislation regarding carbon monoxide detectors and so on. The penalties are now far more severe—financial penalties and potentially even criminal penalties. That is as it should be.

I feel it would be appropriate to look again at the issue of no-fault evictions. Although it is right to say that in the overwhelming majority of cases, landlords behave appropriately and with a proper sense of their responsibility to their fellow citizens, it does cause me some unease that there remains scope in the legislation for landlords to act in a capricious way. The hon. Member for Westminster North has identified some chilling examples, and the quote that she read, while wholly unrepresentative of the broad mass of landlords, revealed that a landlord could seek to leave someone homeless over the Christmas period for vindictive reasons. That would be an act of appalling cruelty.

However, I wanted to make some other points, very gently. As the hon. Lady was right to mention and acknowledge, this is a balance, and it is important that as part of any examination of this matter, the Government should consider what the implications are for the pipeline of homes. I say that because there is a potential risk—probably a tolerable risk, but none the less a risk—that further measures could seek to interfere with that pipeline. For the reasons that the hon. Lady indicated, I suspect that risk is tolerable, and if the conditions were crafted appropriately to ensure that there was a genuinely good reason to issue a notice, that risk ought not to eventuate. It would be important to allow landlords to issue a notice if, for example, their financial circumstances had changed or they were selling up to move abroad.

Any measures would have to be drawn up with appropriate flexibility. However, as long as that could take place, as long as any examination proceeded with care, and as long as projections could satisfy us that those measures would not lead to an intolerable diminution in the pipeline of available homes, the hon. Lady has a point—a point that the Government would in conscience do well to consider. We should keep this matter under constant review, and I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for drawing this important issue to the attention of the House.

[Wera Hobhouse]

On a point of order, Mr Hollobone. I failed to draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests, and I do so now. I apologise that I failed to do so.

Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Alex Chalk and Wera Hobhouse

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 12th July 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Chalk]

I absolutely accept that the purpose of consideration in Committee is to drill down on such matters and see how they would work in practice. No one should misread my representation on this; of course victims come first—that is why we are here and why the Government have moved so quickly to get the Bill on to the statute book. We recognise that there is a socking great hole in the law that needs to be filled. The question is how that can be done as effectively, efficiently and fairly as possible. Apart from anything else, if the view is taken in due course that we did not think about that in Committee, the people who will be most upset about that are the victims, who will think it bad law.

[Wera Hobhouse]

All of us here, and me in particular, recognise that it is important to get something on the statute book, and I am grateful that the Government have acted so quickly. At the same time, that should not be the overwhelming reason we cannot now consider amendments seriously and see whether we can create very good law. As has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, we should not have to come back in a year’s time because we have not really considered something enough and have created loopholes. There will be victims for whom justice is not done. Also, if I may say—

[Wera Hobhouse]

Thank you, Ms Buck. On the campaigner’s evidence, it became quite clear when I questioned her that she had not considered how other victims would feel, apart from what she had experienced.

[Alex Chalk]

I congratulate the hon. Lady once again on the vigour with which she has pursued this important cause.

With enormous respect, I do not think that anyone has dealt with the issue of the sexual offenders register. If we accept that not everyone should automatically go on it, the key problem with the amendment is that it does not answer the question of how a court is supposed to decide.

At the moment, the prosecution will say, “You, Mr Bloggs, are charged on an indictment with upskirting pursuant to section 67A(3)(a)—that is to say, sexual gratification.” The jury will consider the evidence that a photo was sent to a pornographic site, or about where it was stored on the defendant’s computer, or about what was found at his home, or whatever it is. They will convict the defendant, and the judge will say, “We will put you on the sexual offenders register and give you a sentence of 18 months in prison,” or whatever it is—simple.

If the amendment were made, what on earth would the judge be supposed to do? All the jury need to find is that the defendant intentionally used his phone to upskirt, so they would reject his ludicrous defence that somehow the phone operated automatically, but the poor old judge would raise his hands and say, “What am I going to do now? I have to make a decision that will be incredibly significant for protecting the public, potentially, and in changing this man’s life,” as he might be an idiotic criminal with no previous convictions and lots of personal mitigation. The judge would say, “All right, I will put him on the sexual offenders register.” But should a jury not decide that? The only way they can sensibly decide that question is if the Bill allows them to. I am concerned that judges will ask, “What on earth has Parliament done here? It has not assisted us, as judges, to do justice in the cases before us.” For those reasons, I oppose the amendment.

Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Alex Chalk and Wera Hobhouse

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th July 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Chalk]

Q With respect, that is a separate issue about how it sits in the canon of sexual offences law. My question is whether this proposal is fit for purpose. I am asking whether you can provide any evidence of culpable conduct that was not capable of being prosecuted to conviction because of a perceived deficiency in the law. Can you provide any example?

Mrs Miller: I cannot provide that example. What I can do is give you professional, expert opinion, including most recently that of Lord Pannick in the House of Lords, which says quite clearly that setting out the provisions, as currently drafted in the Bill, only to cover situations that are to do with sexual gratification and alarming and distressing victims, draws the piece of legislation too tightly. I have to say that I do not want to question the opinion of Lord Pannick.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Q Can I come back to the first amendment and hear a little bit more of the response to the argument that we would reverse a core principle in British law that somebody is innocent until proven guilty? I understand that is one of the main arguments why the amendment should not be put forward because, basically, it would make it very difficult for an alleged perpetrator to prove his or her innocence.

Mrs Miller: I think that is, if I might say, Sir Roger, something that seems to be a point of disagreement with the Government and a number of people who have provided evidence to me—not only Professor Clare McGlynn, but Lord Pannick and the words of David Ormerod. They all suggest that removing the two provisions that narrow the purposes of the Bill would not at all reverse the burden of proof. In fact, in doing so, it would be brought more in line with three quarters of the sexual offences in the 2003 Act.

Rather than in some way perverting the law, which was my layman’s take on what the Minister said in the Second Reading Committee, the amendment would more likely bring this piece of law into line with other offences under the Sexual Offences Act. There is no requirement in criminal law to specify particular motives for criminal offences—only in exceptional circumstances. The Government have not said why this would be an exceptional circumstance.

Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Alex Chalk and Wera Hobhouse

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Wera Hobhouse]

Q Are you saying that you are just worried about the delay of the Bill?

Gina Martin: I am absolutely worried about the delay of the Bill. I do not think we should delay this protection being afforded to women in order to look at that, because it needs to be looked at in detail. Also, it would take one celebrity to table a report of outraging public decency to stop this happening. I have discussed that at length with the media and people this has been done to by the paparazzi.

[Alex Chalk]

Q On the paparazzi point, the Bill says that a person commits an offence if he

“does so with the intention”

that he, or another person he has passed it on to, will look at the image

“for a purpose mentioned in subsection (3)”—

that is, for sexual gratification or “humiliating, alarming or distressing” the person. In other words, if a pap takes the image and sends it on to somebody who thinks, “Hey, look at her! Look at what underwear she is wearing,” or, indeed, uses it for some perverted reason, do you think that that meets the concern that is being raised from your point of view?

Gina Martin: Again, I do not want to sit here and give legal advice, because I am not a lawyer, but there is an argument that although it does not say, “personal gain from publishing those images and other people gaining sexual gratification from them,” there is a way that the Bill covers that situation, because it covers all people in England and Wales. There is an argument that that could be covered as well in this Bill.