|
Mr. Davey: I shall seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment, because the Minister has reassured me that subsection (4)(a) and (b) are not intended to prevent selective licensing from being chosen. I was concerned that the drafting might mean that the local authority had to show that it had tried various other strategies first. Potentially, the local authority could be judicially reviewed by landlords who were trying to put obstacles in the way. However, I understand from the Minister's reply that selective licensing can be implemented alongside other measures, and that reassures me.
The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) made some interesting points. He is probably aware that there are many other sanctions before ASBOs which do not require statutory cover, such as acceptable behaviour contracts and parental control agreements. Those have been tried in my constituency and piloted by colleagues in Islington, Liverpool and many other areas. They are very effective and much cheaper to implement, because they do not require a visit to the courts, with all the evidence that that requires.
Column Number: 5
Andrew Selous: The people involved in the case that is seared on my memory, and to which I have referred frequently in this Committee, are adults, and acceptable behaviour contracts are generally, as I understand it, for children, so would not be appropriate.
Mr. Davey: Because acceptable behaviour contracts are not a statutory device, the local authority need not restrict them to children. One can use such techniques, and many local authorities have done so successfully. I would be out of order if I continued along that path, so I shall beg to ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 70
Notification requirements relating to designations
2.45 pm
Mr. Davey: I beg to move amendment No. 293, in
The Chairman: With this we shall take amendment No. 294, in
Mr. Davey: My amendments would ensure that when a designation notification was published, and when a designation was reviewed and potentially revoked, the objectives were made clear. Clauses 70 and 71 do not require the objectives of a designation to be set out in the notice or to be debated when reviewing or revoking a designation.
It is a small point, but if a local authority goes to the trouble of publishing a notice stating various other things in the prescribed manner, that local authority really ought also to say why it has decided to go down the designation route. Has that been done under clause 67(3), which puts forward the set of conditions with regard to economic generation; under clause 67(6), which sets out antisocial behaviour considerations; or under clause 67(7), which sets out further considerations that the Government may make? I wanted clarification from the Minister on why there is no requirement in those processes for a statement of the original objectives of the designation.
Yvette Cooper: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning had intended to speak on clause 71. I will briefly answer on the basis of the principle of clause 70. Perhaps the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton will be happy with my answer. If not, my right hon. Friend can supply further details of the implications of amendment No. 294.
The basic principle is that information about the designation's purpose would have to be set out as part of the consultation process. It is right that people should know why their local area is being designated—
Column Number: 6
is it because of antisocial behaviour, or because of low demand? The local authority would have to set that out in some detail when going through the consultation process in the first instance. If local authorities chose, they could also add information when they set out the final details of the designation. We simply felt that that would be a bureaucratic duplication; the most appropriate time to mention such information is at consultation, when people can debate and appeal against it. We needed to flag up the purpose of the designation at that point, rather than at the conclusion of the process.
Mr. Davey: I am not going to press the amendment, but I was not terribly convinced by the Under-Secretary's argument that it would be very bureaucratic. It would seem sensible to add one or two lines to a notice to explain why it has been issued in a public manner. Although I will not press the amendment, I would urge the Under-Secretary to talk to her officials about the matter.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill) rose—
Mr. Davey: Obviously the Minister wants to intervene, to enlighten me.
Keith Hill: Not to intervene, but to respond. The hon. Gentleman can then answer my observations. I am tempted to say that I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and sit down, but my audience would like a little action after a long period of silence on my part.
I shall briefly explain to the hon. Gentleman exactly why the provision in amendment No. 294 is bureaucratic. It is perfectly clear that in making the designation the local authority will have to identify the reasons and purposes for which the designation is made. It is set out in clause 67(6)(a), (b) and (c) that
''the area is experiencing a significant and persistent problem caused by antisocial behaviour . . . that some or all of the private sector landlords . . . are failing to take action to combat the problem''
and to make it a designation would
''lead to a reduction in, or elimination of, the problem.''
In making the designation, the purposes of that designation are clear.
Amendment 294 would require the local authority to specify in its review the purposes for undertaking that review. That, we argue, is bureaucratic and cumbersome and it duplicates activity. The intention behind the requirement for local authorities to carry out these reviews—the principle of which nobody has disputed—is obviously to assess whether the purposes set out in the designation have been achieved. In other words, it is meant to ensure that the objectives behind the designation have been, or are in the process of being, achieved, thereby ensuring that the designation is still necessary. This is exactly the same provision as that in clause 49, for additional HMO licensing. On that occasion, neither the hon. Gentleman nor his colleagues chose to object or stipulate any further qualifications to that proposal.
I understand why the hon. Gentleman tabled his amendment. The purposes for which designations are
Column Number: 7
made are inevitably going to be taken into account in the review—why on earth do otherwise? To all intents and purposes his concerns are covered in the provisions in clause 67, and for that reason I urge him to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Davey: I suspect that the Minister would not have minded the amendment being made—I suspect that there is not a lot dividing us on this issue. I was simply trying to work out why the provision was not in there in the first place, and now the Minister tells me that it is implicit. Quite a lot that could be implicit has been included in other parts of the Bill, so I am not totally convinced by the Minister's argument, but we need to make progress, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 71 and 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 73
Temporary exemption from licensing requirement
Amendments made: No. 43, in
clause 73, page 48, line 44, leave out 'county court' and insert 'residential property tribunal'.
No. 44, in
clause 73, page 49, leave out line 5.
No. 45, in
clause 73, page 49, line 6, leave out 'court' and insert 'tribunal'.
No. 46, in
clause 73, page 49, line 9, leave out 'court' and insert 'tribunal'.—[Yvette Cooper.]
Clause 73, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 74 and 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 76
Tests for fitness etc. and satisfactory management arrangements
Mr. Robert Syms (Poole) (Con): I beg to move amendment No. 309, in
This amendment concerns a test of fitness and is part of a theme we introduced earlier in the Bill, which is that one ought to pay regard to people having convictions or being on the sex offenders register. This is something that ought to be considered as part of the criteria.
I do not intend to go on, as it is almost dark and I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about our well-crafted amendments.
Keith Hill: Clause 76 is almost the exact counterpart to clause 55. The Committee will recall that, in our discussions on clause 55, I accepted that a local authority needs to be aware as best it can of the actions of licensed managers whose actions might
Column Number: 8
subsequently make them unfit to be a licence holder. I undertook at the conclusion of our exchanges to give further consideration to adding sex offences to the list and I do so again in connection with clause 76.
Mr. Syms: I thank the Minister for his answer. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
