| Housing Bill
|
|
Richard Younger-Ross: Is it not the case that the word ''reasonable'' is needed because something that is reasonable at one time of the day might be unreasonable at another? Account must be taken of the exact level of noise and when the nuisance occurs. If we simply prescribed that steps must be taken, we would end up with a rigid regime that might stop people putting up a set of shelves or something like that. Matthew Green: My hon. Friend is on to a good point. However, I turn to the Minister's usual defence, which is that the term ''reasonable'' is well established in law and would be well understood by the judicial system, should the matter end up in court. Sir Sydney Chapman: I am not trying to be pedantic. I could understand the hon. Gentleman using the word ''reasonable'' if it also applied to the other five of the six sets of conditions in the clause. I was satisfied—or reasonably so—by the Minister's explanation of ''reasonable'' in another debate. The only distinction that I can see between the amendment and subsection (2)(b) is the word ''reasonable''. Apart from that the provision is the same in its scope and its intention. That is the simple point that I am making. If the hon. Gentleman does not want to pursue it, fair enough. The Chairman: I too am satisfied that we are making reasonable progress. Matthew Green: I shall try to be brief when dealing with the far more substantive point. The Government version of the paragraph talks about the landlord
whereas the amendment refers to
There is a substantial difference. The amendment brings the private sector into line with the social sector by using the same terminology as that used in the regulations relating to social sector and council housing. The term ''controlling the behaviour'' puts an extra duty on the private sector that goes beyond that on the social sector. Mr. Hayes rose—
The Chairman: Mr. Hayes, remember what you said earlier this afternoon. Mr. Hayes: Thank you, Mr. Pike. The hon. Member for Ludlow should wrap this up as quickly as possible, because he is in all sorts of difficulties. Local authorities, housing associations and others have a responsibility to their tenants. If we are Column Number: 232 to deal with antisocial behaviour properly, all landlords should take that responsibility seriously. Good landlords already do. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is exercising the Liberal conscience, but if he is, he should draw his remarks to a close promptly, or we shall make no progress at all.Matthew Green: If I did not take so many interventions, I would probably get to the end faster. I sat down once, but I was invited to respond by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman). To come back to the point, the amendment brings the provision into line with those for the social sector and the council house sector. Therefore, far from being a woolly Liberal, I am trying to ensure that the private sector only has to operate at the same level as the social sector, thus bringing the Bill into line with other legislation. Yvette Cooper: The clause provides for the HMO licence conditions that a local authority may include on a licence and those that they must apply. Specific conditions that the local authority may use are set out in subsection (2) and include provisions on the behaviour of the occupants. Subsection (3) refers to schedule 4, which sets out the mandatory conditions for licences issued under part 2 for HMOs and part 3 for selective licensing. In identifying the mandatory conditions for part 2 and part 3 licences, we have considered what is necessary to ensure tenants' safety. Therefore, the conditions set out in the schedule include having a gas safety certificate, keeping electrical appliances and furniture in a safe condition, keeping smoke alarms in proper working order and so on. In addition, the landlord will be required to supply the occupier of the house with a written statement of the terms on which they occupy it. Most good landlords have written agreements, because they see them as a key part of managing the relationship with their tenants. The purpose of licensing is to encourage landlords to take greater responsibility for the relationship with their tenants. That includes tackling tenants' anti-social behaviour when it has an impact on the surrounding community.
4.30 pmAmendment No. 260 would limit the scope of the behaviour that a local authority might seek to control through imposing a condition on a licence under clause 56(2)(b). The amendment would limit the condition to one that would address nuisance or annoyance caused by persons occupying or visiting a house, and it would require specifically that the steps that the condition would require to be taken were reasonable. I have some sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. Clearly, we want to ensure both that the requirements on landlords are reasonable and that we are dealing with antisocial behaviour rather than any aspect of people's behaviour. Let me set out the safeguards that are already in place in the Bill, first on the issue of reasonableness. Local authorities and public bodies have duties to Column Number: 233 behave reasonably. It is set out in case law. It would be unreasonable to impose unreasonable conditions on landlords. Therefore, there is already a reasonableness test that must be passed. Clause 56(2) begins:
therefore the test of reasonableness is also inherent in the wording of the clause. Under subsection (6), a condition such as that set out under subsection (2)(b) could not go beyond what a landlord would be required to do in respect of his contractual relationship with a tenant. That provides a further safeguard. Moreover, the landlord would be able to refer a condition to the independent housing tribunal if he was concerned about it. A series of safeguards would ensure that the conditions are reasonable because, clearly, a landlord cannot be expected to take responsibility for each aspect of a tenant's behaviour. Tenants must take responsibility for their own behaviour. Nevertheless, there are things that private landlords can do, as can social housing landlords and housing associations, to prevent antisocial behaviour from occurring. The second concern that is implicit in the amendment is that the conditions should require steps being taken to address the nuisance and annoyance caused, rather than with a view to controlling people's behaviour. I am happy to consider the wording of the provision to see how it relates to the wording used in respect of social landlords or local authorities. We do not intend the provision to apply to every sort of behaviour against which a local authority is prejudiced. It must be reasonable and it must deal specifically with antisocial behaviour. Again, we must allow local authorities to take responsibility for their decisions and have flexibility to address the sorts of antisocial behaviour problems that they have in their area. Conditions will have to be proportionate for good reason: like others, local authorities are bound by the safeguards of the Human Rights Act 1998. Proportionality is a further safeguard in that respect. The amendment would cause an additional problem: it would be too restrictive by only allowing conditions to be imposed that would demand action to address nuisance and annoyance when such behaviour had occurred. It may be appropriate for local authorities to set standards of behaviour that they believe landlords should require their tenants to meet or, for example, to expect landlords to make clear to tenants in advance that antisocial behaviour will risk the tenancy. In practice, there may be steps that local authorities can take to encourage landlords to take action to prevent antisocial behaviour from happening in the first place rather than simply patching up such behaviour after it has occurred. Andrew Selous: I have a particular interest in subsection 2(b) because it is of much concern to many of my constituents. Will the Minister elaborate briefly on what powers are envisaged by the words ''controlling the behaviour''? In particular, what ultimate sanction will be left to the landlord? My experience is that landlords of all types of tenures can Column Number: 234 be very slow to do something about such problems, which causes severe difficulties in our constituencies.Yvette Cooper: There are legal powers for landlords, whether private landlords, local authorities or housing associations, to enforce tenancy agreements. Clearly, it will be for landlords to decide how they should enforce tenancy agreements and what action they should take, but there are powers in place. I agree that landlords of every type should take action swiftly and should be responsible about addressing antisocial behaviour. We know of many examples from across the country of local authorities and housing associations that take antisocial behaviour seriously and take all kinds of responsible action both to prevent it and to address it once it occurs. The intention behind the clause is to extend that capacity and promote such responsible behaviour among private landlords as well. Many already take such action, but, with HMOs and selective licensing, which we shall discuss in the next part of the Bill, it is right to promote such behaviour. The amendment would not help to prevent antisocial behaviour. There are safeguards to ensure both that landlords are reasonable and that demands on tenants are proportionate. Also, I have undertaken to consider further the wording across different sectors. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Ludlow to withdraw the amendment.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 27 January 2004 |
