Housing Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Conway. I seek your guidance. I, too, wish to make remarks about antisocial behaviour, but that seems to be covered under clause 67(6). At what point should I make my remarks on that subject? We seem to be touching on it now, but it does not seem to be specifically mentioned in clause 66.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman should make his remarks specifically about antisocial behaviour when we get to the next clause, but the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton is relating that matter to the licensing provisions of clause 66. At the moment, he is in order. He is skating near the edge, but he is

Column Number: 261

relating his point to whether the clause would cover the individual difficulty in his constituency. I am reasonably content that his speech is in order, as long as it specifically relates to whether licensing will cover individual cases and and does not turn into a general debate about antisocial behaviour. I would not want it to be broader and take in the wider subject of antisocial behaviour at this stage.

Mr. Davey: Nor would I, Mr. Conway. I am concerned about particular landlords. Having been reassured previously by the Under-Secretary that those would be covered, it appears, on closer examination, that that is not so. This is a difficult area. I propose—actually, I am not sure whether I want to propose it, but it is worth having the debate—that the only way to get round that issue would be to allow the local housing authority to designate a particular landlord, rather than adopt the Government's approach and deal with a category of properties, or a particular area.

In clause 66 we are talking about licensing houses in a particular area. Perhaps the Government should have gone further to give powers to license an individual landlord if they behave in a way that breaks the conditions set out in clause 66, especially subsection (6). I wonder whether the Under-Secretary has given any thought to that.

There are difficulties, possibly including human rights problems. There could be a problem if the local housing authority abused those powers and targeted an individual because there had been some disagreement between them. However, if the Under-Secretary is keen to provide the local housing authorities with powers to tackle a particular type of landlord, perhaps she needs to think about my proposal—although I am sure that it is too late in the process to include it in this Bill. There would need to be wide consultation, because it would create a different type of licensing regime and one that would, in some people's eyes, be quite onerous. However, it is important that the Under-Secretary explains, certainly for my constituents, whether I have got it wrong, whether there are powers in the Bill to deal with that kind of landlord, and whether the Government are sympathetic and might take the idea away and think about it.

The Chairman: Order. Before I call the Under-Secretary, the Committee will see that we will deal with clause 86 onward once the knife has fallen at the end of today's sitting; it is likely that we will do so on Tuesday morning. There will no doubt be a more general debate on the specific issues that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has raised when we reach clause 87. The Under-Secretary should therefore reply briefly to the point he makes.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) asked whether university accommodation is covered. He was right to mention clause 66(4), which allows ''the appropriate national authority'' to

''provide for descriptions of tenancies of licences specified in the order to be exempt from tenancies of licences.''

Column Number: 262

We intend to exempt halls of residence from this licensing regime for the same reasons that we gave during the HMOs debate. Universities should already be responsible landlords. Under part 4 we will exclude certain other tenancies as prescribed in an order that will reflect schedule 1 of the Housing Act 1988. For example, long leaseholds, local authority tenancies, and business and agricultural tenancies will be included.

The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has raised an important issue. I draw his attention to clause 88, which makes proposals for special interim management orders, which might be appropriate in the circumstances that he describes. As you have said, Mr. Conway, we will have an opportunity to discuss that clause next Tuesday, so that would be the appropriate time to talk in more detail about the concerns the hon. Gentleman raised. It is intended that the Bill should address the kinds of problems about which he is talking—and clause 88 provides the appropriate way to do that.

We have a wide-ranging debate and although we have concentrated on the detail, I think that everybody is in agreement on the strong need for these measures to be in place and on the strong support for them—particularly from communities in areas that are blighted by serious problems. The proposals will give them the power to help them address those problems.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 67

Designation of selective licensing areas

Mr. Davey: I beg to move amendment No. 289, in

clause 67, page 44, line 23, at end insert

', or

(c) areas in their district,'.

This is a probing amendment to check that the Government have got their legislation right. Subsection (1) states:

''A local housing authority may designate either—

(a) the area of their district, or

(b) an area in their district,

as subject to selective licensing''.

I wanted to check that that does not prevent a local housing authority from designating more than one area in its district, where the areas do not make up the total amount of its district. The Government might feel that the subsection will work by allowing a local housing authority to designate, for example, two different wards. Amendment No. 289 is designed simply to help the Government pursue their policy even more effectively, if they have not got the measure right.

Yvette Cooper: The clause sets out the designation of selective licensing areas—the types of areas that can be licensed and what the basic requirements for making a designation are. It provides that a local housing authority can designate an area of its district as subject to selective licensing if either one or other of

Column Number: 263

two sets of general conditions specified in the Bill are fulfilled: Subsection (3) provides:

''that the area is, or is likely to become, an area of low housing demand''.

and that

''combined with other measures taken . . . by the local authority''

the designation will help to improve

''the social or economic conditions in the area.''

Subsection (6) applies to areas that have significant antisocial behaviour problems. That subsection was added because we heard from many people that problems that are often concentrated in low-demand areas are not exclusive to those areas. Significant problems of persistent antisocial behaviour that are rooted in poor management by private landlords can arise in other areas as well.

Subsection (7) allows the appropriate national authority to add to those two sets of general conditions. Subsection (9) requires a local housing authority to consult locally and satisfactorily on its scheme for selective licensing before it makes a designation under the clause.

Amendment No. 289 would amend subsection (1), which provides that a designation under part 3 can relate to a part of a local authority's area or to all of it. The current drafting of the Bill does not prevent selective licensing from operating in different parts of a local authority area. Some local authorities will want to license more than one part of their area and it would be crazy if they could only license either one small corner, or the whole of. their area. That is obviously not the intention of the Bill, and I am assured by the lawyers that that is not its effect. The Bill provides that all of a local authority area can be licensed, but we do not expect such a situation to arise given that the scope of the regime is focused on low demand and antisocial behaviour. Licensing should be used only where it is necessary, so the general expectation is that it will not apply to all of a local authority area.

Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): I have tried to follow the debate with some care. As as I understand it, the central question is: can a local authority have only one go at designating an area? If it can, presumably it applies the regulations on each occasion. Is that the Minister's understanding of the matter?

10.30 am

Yvette Cooper: No, clearly a local authority does not have only one go; separate areas may need to be licensed. If there are distinct areas, however, various conditions and circumstances may apply. They may need to be justified in different ways.

It is possible for general approvals to be given under clause 69(6), so it may be appropriate for the national authority to confirm a series of areas or several areas specified by the local authority that meet particular conditions, rather than the local authority having to make identical repeat applications for them all. The power of general approval could be used, but if a local authority proposes to designate different parts of an area for different reasons, it is appropriate that each should be justified separately and on their

Column Number: 264

own terms. Appropriate consultation processes should be gone through in each of those areas, and they should be individually justified.

The Bill allows us to treat separate parts of local authority areas separately when appropriate, but gives the power in clause 69 for general approval when appropriate. As I said earlier, we might want to be cautious on the early application of that power, and it may take some time to get in place. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton to withdraw the amendment.

 

---

Prepared 29 January 2004