Clause 16 - Proceedings for possession:
Anti-social Behaviour Bill
12:00 pm
Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
This is a probing amendment, and I do not want the Minister to tell me what the consequences would be of leaving subsection (1) out. The amendment was tabled to challenge him on the purpose of having that subsection in the clause. The subsection refers to section 85 of the Housing Act 1985 and to schedule 2 of that Act, which, giving the grounds for possession, clearly states ground 2 to be:
''The tenant or a person residing in the dwelling-house has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to neighbours''.
All that clause 16(1) seems to do is re-establish that. It says that the court must then consider whether antisocial behaviour has taken place. I fail fully to comprehend why that is necessary. If the tenant or person residing has been found guilty of certain conduct under schedule 2 of the 1985 Act, that establishes beyond peradventure that they have committed antisocial behaviour in terms of nuisance or annoyance. I do not fully understand why we need clause 16(1), which says:
''The court must consider, in particular—
(a) the effect that the nuisance or annoyance has had on persons other than the person against whom the order is sought'';
and so on. It seems that that provision is already enshrined in schedule 2 to the 1985 Act.
If we look at the contradiction between that and clause 16(2), which refers to ground 14 in the Housing Act 1988, we see the same phraseology in terms of ''guilty of conduct'', which is a nuisance or annoyance, but then we find reference to neighbours. In the 1985 Act the conduct is specified as nuisance or annoyance to neighbours, whereas in the 1998 Act it is nuisance or annoyance to adjoining occupiers.
If the purpose of subsections (1) and (2) are to make the two Acts identical—substantively identical phraseology is used in subsections (1) and (2)—we still end up with two different grounds: ground 2 in the 1985 Act referring to neighbours, and ground 14 in the 1988 Act referring to adjoining occupiers. We have spent a great deal of time discussing the legal
interpretation of various words, but as a layman there seems to be a significant difference between a neighbour and an adjoining occupier. An adjoining occupier is a much more specific term.
I have tabled the amendment to challenge the Government about what we are trying to achieve in the clause. First, a clear statement that the tenant has to be guilty is established in the 1985 and 1988 Acts; I therefore see no need to require the court to decide whether they are guilty. Secondly, if the purpose of the two subsections is to draw the two Acts into having identical language, the provision does not address the significant distinction between a neighbour and an adjoining occupier.
As I said, this is an exploratory or probing amendment. I do not pretend to understand the legalese and I look forward to the Minister's attempt to explain it. I hope that I have successfully explained the reasons for amendment No. 197, which is not simply to exclude subsection (1) but to challenge the Government as to why it is necessary to require the court to reconsider what seems already established in the grounds as identified in the other two Acts.