| Housing Bill
|
|
Mr. Hayes: The Minister has made provision in the Bill to inform people who might be affected by such a designation. The Bill states at clause 45(3)(a) that ''reasonable steps'' must be taken. A large number of people will be affected—landlords, tenants and also other members of the public in the area designated. He said that it might be narrow; it might be a whole estate; it might be a neighbourhood or a single street. What kind of reasonable measures to inform people do the Government have in mind: written notification, notices on lamp posts, advertisements in the local paper? Keith Hill: We will come later to provisions for exactly such notification. The posting of notices, the sending of publicity materials and advertising in local newspapers are mostly specified as the means of communication with those to be affected by a licensing regime. We are conscious of the fact—this is what I want to say in due course in response to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ludlow—that in these matters we are dealing not only with landlords and tenants, although they are critical to the process, but with the wider community. Therefore, we are conscious of the need for communication to go to the wider community. The problems with which we are dealing in parts 2 to 4 of the Bill in normal circumstances affect the wider community. We will return to that matter in due course. Amendment No. 252 would prevent the targeting of the registration and licensing arrangements to specific areas within a local authority: if an authority felt a need to regulate a certain part of its market, it would Column Number: 195 have to introduce licensing across the entire area. That would clearly result in unneeded regulation of landlords, and it would mean that local authorities would not be able to focus their efforts where they were really needed.As part of our desire to see regulation used appropriately, before making a designation a local authority must also consider that a significant proportion of the HMOs specified is giving rise to problems for the HMO's occupants or members of the public because of poor management arrangements. When coming to that decision a local authority must consider the extent to which HMO managers in the area have complied with the code of practice approved under clause 171. A local authority must also consult those likely to be affected by the designation and take account of any representations received. Already implicit in the provisions is the requirement for communication as part and parcel of that consultation process. Amendment No. 253, also in the name of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, proposes that local authorities should consult both tenants and landlords before making a designation. In practice, the amendment would restrict those persons to be consulted for reasons to which I have already referred. Although landlords and tenants are obviously the people who will generally be most affected by a proposal to extend licensing, they are not the only people whose views may matter. Mismanagement of HMOs can have a significant effect on, for example, other local residents. For that reason, we require consultation of people who would have a relevant interest in an additional licensing designation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accepts that that is the correct approach. The views of landlords and tenants are important, but they are not the sole interested parties.
11 amAmendment No. 255 was tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow, who is one third of the notional Liberal Democrat representation on the Committee. I hope that I can persuade him that what the Bill provides is not too far away from what the amendment suggests. The amendment would require a local authority to ''take reasonable steps'' to work with landlords, agents and associations before licensing. I am the first to encourage better relationships between landlords and local authorities. Many local authorities have shown that there can be benefits for all concerned in a better working relationship between landlords, tenants and local authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East is right to say, however, the problem is often that only the good and willing landlord will engage in such schemes. Clause 46(4)(a) already requires that a designation cannot be made unless other alternatives—for example, voluntary accreditation—have been considered. Therefore, licensing will be used to deal with problems with specific categories of property in areas where alternative solutions alone have not worked or would not work. Column Number: 196 There is not a great deal of difference between what the Government want to happen and what the amendment would require. Under our proposals, a local authority will be required to consider whether working with landlords would work before going for additional licensing. The amendment suggests that the authority take steps that it considers appropriate to enter into working partnerships with landlords before making a designation. The amendment would have little practical effect. As with other amendments, the hon. Member for Ludlow seems to be worrying that local authorities will not do what is best. Of course, that might well be the case in his local authority, but on the whole we do not want to go too far down the path of chastising that body; I am sure that he will take the message back to south Shropshire. I hope that I have explained clearly the approach that we have taken in the clause and why the amendments are unnecessary. I invite the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to withdraw the amendment. [Interruption.] I am advised by the silent ones who do not exist that it may be necessary to correct a point made in response to the hon. Gentleman in our debate on clause 193, so may I, in all humility, take this opportunity to correct a misapprehension that he may have picked up from my earlier comments? Additional licensing can extend only to houses falling within the definition of an HMO, so if a converted block has less than one third short-term tenants, it is not an HMO and cannot be subject to licensing, although the provisions of part 1 on the health and safety rating system still apply. Matthew Green: The interesting piece of inspiration about the earlier amendments that just arrived with the Minister is somewhat concerning. I imagine that he will want to consider that point, because there will be circumstances in which there are sizeable groups of tenanted flats in a large block that is more than two thirds owner-occupied. He may want to consider how he will get round that problem, because I cannot imagine that he intends it to arise. I suspect that he will want to seek further inspiration as to how he can deal with that loophole. On amendment No. 255, I am satisfied that clause 46(4)(a) provides that local authorities must have tried something else beforehand. I am a bit concerned that the Minister might want the regulations to apply where there are no properties to be regulated. Perhaps that is why in south Shropshire there is not and has never been a Labour councillor. The last Labour member, who was elected as an independent, was knocked off the council five years ago. The Government have an over-regulatory zeal and want council officers to sit around doing nothing because there is nothing to license. That is clearly the path down which the Minister wants to go. Mr. Hayes: It seems to me that the Minister has made a persuasive case about licensing. I acknowledged that I was already leaning towards that because of the kind of arguments that were Column Number: 197 powerfully made by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East. Although landlords have concerns about how additional licensing will be applied, there are circumstances in which voluntary arrangements and schemes, such as those that work well in South Holland, are not effective. I am interested in what the Minister said about the patchy nature of those schemes, and in how much that reflects the assiduity of local authorities or is caused by local circumstances, such as those described in Bolton. Bad landlords may tend to concentrate in certain areas, and that may mean that a scheme is unlikely to succeed, even if the local authority is anxious to do its best. Our amendments were designed to probe the Minister, and a good case has been made.The amendment that deals with tenants and landlords being consulted was not designed to exclude other people, although, as the Minister suggested, that is the practical implication. It was designed to highlight the fact that landlords must be centrally involved in the process. It is a matter of salience to a wider public: to tenants, because they are vulnerable and are likely to be the ones who suffer, and to landlords. We are anxious to ensure fairness for landlords and tenants; that is the best way to proceed with legislation. However, I accept what the Minister said and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 27 January 2004 |
