---

The noble Baroness said: This probing amendment was tabled in another place, but it is important that a suitable explanation is also provided in this House. Clause 97 is not particularly easy to follow; for instance, the idea of a person having an interest in a house or in part of a house needs to be clarified. What is an interest in "part of the house"? Is it shared ownership, for example? How do we define it? I would be grateful if the Minister would be kind enough to explain. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: I reiterate what my noble friend said in response to the noble Baroness's points about the late government amendments. We agree that we are putting into the Bill substantial new material that was not discussed in the other place. It is all good stuff, and it will still be scrutinised. There is always the danger, when everybody agrees that new provisions are all good stuff, that they will not be scrutinised properly. That is why we ended up with the disaster of the way in which the Child Support Agency was set up initially. Everyone thought that it was a good idea, so Parliament failed in its job of scrutinising. We fully expect proper scrutiny and debates on Report. We have no problem about that at all.

9 Sept 2004 : Column 798

I also hope that I can give a satisfactory explanation to the point that the noble Baroness made about Amendment No.131.

5.45 p.m.

Where an interim management order is made, the local authority can incur expenditure on such things as repairs to the house which will be reimbursed from rental income. It may not be necessary or appropriate for this to extend to the landlord's own accommodation. For example, a landlord may occupy a self-contained basement flat. It may be reasonable for the authority to exclude that flat from the interim management order so that it does not have to carry out repairs or do other things at the landlord's expense. The landlord would have the discretion to determine how money which would otherwise be deducted from his rental income is spent on the repair of the area in which he privately resides.

In other circumstances it might be necessary to include the landlord's accommodation in the order, where, for example, he shares facilities with the tenants such as a bathroom or kitchen, or if he was behaving in an anti-social manner, or was harassing the tenants. Inclusion in the order in those circumstances would make it far more practical for the local authority to be able to take effective legal action against him, which might include, for example, seeking authority from a court to exclude him from the property.

But, of course, if the landlord is aggrieved by any decision to include or exclude his personal accommodation from the order, he will have a right of appeal against that decision to the residential property tribunal.

I have given a couple of examples of how properties are split to the noble Baroness. That is fairly normal in properties in urban areas.

Baroness Hanham: Can I ask for a further example? There are houses in multiple occupation—or which will now be deemed to be in multiple occupation as a result of the Bill—where there may be two self-contained flats and some higher floors that are single dwellings. Would the self-contained part not be considered because it would not come under the legislation? But would individual accommodation associated with it be what this clause refers to?

Lord Rooker: I will have to take advice on that matter. It is a practical question and a practical example. The self-contained area might be excluded, but I need to be reinforced with advice on that point.

The noble Baroness asked what is meant by an interest in part of a house. This could be an interest in a flat. Shared ownership of a house or flat would also fall within this definition. Under a shared ownership arrangement there would be an interest in the property.

Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply. It will be helpful to tease out some more examples of this sometime.

9 Sept 2004 : Column 799

The Bill expands what the term "houses in multiple occupation" relates to. Some further explanation of this matter would be helpful, either earlier in the Bill or at this point. We will come back to this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 97 shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Maddock: Many of the issues that I wished to raise about Clause 97 have been discussed at some length. I will look carefully at what has been said and at this stage I am happy for the clause to remain part of the Bill.

Clause 97, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 98 [Special interim management orders]:

Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 131A:

Page 68, line 22, leave out "locality" and insert "vicinity"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 132 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Clause 98, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 99 [The health and safety condition]:

Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 133:

Page 69, line 7, at end insert—

"( ) A local housing authority must have regard to any breach of the duty of care owed to the person occupying the house under section (Duty of care for those having control or managing a HMO)."

The noble Baroness said: Perhaps I may point out that for some reason, yet again, this amendment is in the wrong order on the list. We must do better next time. Amendment No. 133 applies to the health and safety condition currently provided for in Clause 99. It reiterates the obligation on local housing authorities to have regard to any breaches of duty of care when considering making an interim management order.

Over the years, this issue has been discussed. It began in 1983 when the late Jim Marshall MP introduced a houses in multiple occupation Bill to Parliament. In 1999, the Government consulted on the licensing of HMOs. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—I am sure that it was not called that in 1999—said that it had concluded that powers under housing legislation to deal with multiple-occupancy problems were necessary in parallel with the licensing scheme, which it spelt out a bit more carefully.

In July 2003, in the draft housing Bill, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Select Committee recommended that,

"landlords should be given a duty of care to maintain their properties to certain standards and conditions to protect the health and safety of occupiers. The Government should consider how the enforcement regime can be framed to give effect to such duty".

In November 2003, in its response to that recommendation, the ODPM argued that,

"there are already legislative provisions that impose positive obligations on landlords to maintain their properties to certain standards. These include section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant

9 Sept 2004 : Column 800

Act 1985, which implies a repairing obligation on landlords in most short leases. This is reinforced by section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, which imposes a duty on any landlord who has a repairing obligation to take care that nobody is harmed by a relevant defect that should have been repaired. Additionally, detailed provisions as to how managers of licensed property should act in caring for their tenants will be set out in an approved code of practice or prescribed in management regulations".

While that can be of benefit, this legislation does not impose positive obligations on landlords generally to ensure the health and safety of tenants. The issue was not debated during the Bill's Commons stages. But in a response to a parliamentary Question tabled on 13 July 2004, the Housing Minister, Keith Hill, stated that:

"The Government decided not to introduce an additional provision relating to the duty of care on owners of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) because such a duty already exists in law and will be complemented by the provisions in the Housing Bill currently before Parliament".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/04; col. 1084W.]

He again reiterated the various Acts to which I referred earlier.

We, and others, are concerned that this provision is not as strong as we would like it to be. Given all the discussion that there has been, we would urge the Government to make the duty clear in the Bill. It should be made absolutely clear in this very important Bill and we should not just rely on other legislation. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 134.

Page 69, line 8, leave out "threat" and insert "written termination of a tenancy agreement where its perceived intention is"

---