Equality Bill

My Lords, this amendment refers to the effect of the decision of the House of Lords in the Lewisham v Malcolm case, in which—your Lordships may recall it—landlords seeking possession from tenants with disability, particularly those suffering from a mental disability, did not need to justify their decision to take possession proceedings. In the light of that case, I lay out very clearly that our position is firmly in support of the new provisions that address the hole left by this judgment. We want to ensure that people with disability receive the right level of protection from disability-related discrimination. We are fully supportive of the alterations that need to be made to the letter of the law to return to what it was mistakenly thought that the spirit of the law already encapsulated. We ask, however, what has happened so far as consultation is concerned, in particular between the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the landlord associations. We on these Benches believe that reversing the Malcolm decision is necessary and right. Nevertheless, we would want to ensure that this was done in such a way as to make certain that there were no loopholes whereby a landlord could not get rid of a problem tenant simply because they claimed to have a disability that was not in fact the case. The effect of the reversal of the Malcolm decision will be that the mandatory grounds of possession—Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 for a rent arrears of two months and Section 21 for shorthold tenants who have reached the end of their tenancy—will mean that landlords still have to justify possession. However, landlords are rightly concerned that in cases of indirect discrimination, the grounds of possession will become discretionary. This could become important if, for example, a tenant blamed their anti-social behaviour on some form of mental illness which, for the purposes of the Act, could be construed as a disability. This would indeed have important ramifications for people with disability because it might mean that landlords are more reluctant to allow genuinely disabled people to move into rented accommodation. Will the noble Baroness inform the House what discussions have been had with landlord associations here and what reassurances she can offer them? Furthermore, will she inform the House how much evidence of proof would be needed to justify obtaining an order for possession against a person with disability in a situation of indirect discrimination? What form can that proof take? Moreover, does the Minister accept that in practice it will be very difficult for landlords to recoup the costs of defending claims of possession, even where the claims are won? I have posed a lot of questions. If the Minister cannot answer them tonight, perhaps she might do so before Report. We are fully supportive of the changes which would see the Malcolm decision reversed, but there are other important considerations to take into account and other key players to protect. I beg to move.