Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 178, in

clause 3, page 3, line 34, leave out 'At least'.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 217, in

clause 3, page 3, line 34, leave out

'At least once in every year'

and insert

'Within a year of the implementation of this Act of Parliament.'.

Amendment No. 179, in

clause 3, page 3, line 34, leave out 'consider' and insert 'review'.

Amendment No. 180, in

clause 3, page 3, line 36, at end insert—

'(1A) Following the review the authority will have responsibility to make public a report on housing in their district.

(1B) Before any action is taken they must publish what action they will take.

(1C) In respect of discretionary licensing the authority should publish details of their intentions prior to their enforcement'.

Amendment No. 218, in

clause 3, page 3, line 36, at end insert—

'(1A) Subsequent to complying with (1) above, a local authority must consider the housing conditions in their district with a view to determining what action to take under the provisions mentioned in subsection (2), at least once every two years.'.

Amendment No. 181, in

clause 3, page 4, line 10, after 'specify', insert

'(c) issue an annual report'.

Amendment No. 219, in

clause 3, page 3, line 42, at end insert—

'(v) any sections as they relate to empty residential premises'.

New clause 2—Empty Homes (Management orders)—

'The Secretary of State will by order introduce a scheme for Empty Homes Management Orders within 12 months of Royal Assent, subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses.'.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

Having debated the process by which the business of assessing the housing stock will be conducted, we now move to how the local authority will do that. The amendments that I hope to persuade the Committee to accept deal with the regularity with which the authority undertakes reviews and the means by which it makes the information available to others.

The Minister has seen amendments Nos. 178 to 180. Amendment No. 178 sets us somewhere between the Government and the Liberal Democrats, which is a happy position to be in. The Liberal Democrats want the local authority to review its housing stock occasionally—every two years, they propose. The Government are more pressing, suggesting that it should be at least an annual process.

We, as ever, take a measured view, sensitive to the needs of our colleagues in local government, but at the same time defending the needs of the public. Therefore, we suggest dropping the words ''at least'' and leaving the Bill stipulating that there must be a yearly review of housing stock. We say review, because the process should consist of more than a simple consideration. That brings us to the essence of the group, our amendment No. 180. I have disregarded the Liberal amendments because I do not agree with them and because I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton will speak in their defence.

We make two proposals in amendment No. 180. The first is that the authority should make public the report on housing in its area. Therefore, a review of housing should take place and there should be a degree of public understanding, knowledge and scrutiny of what the local authority is doing. That seems important, given some of the things that have been discussed. It will be a big change, and with it will come a comprehensive analysis of a range of issues associated with the housing in a given area. We have had long discussions about both the material condition of some properties and the relationship between those properties and the status of their occupants. Given the fundamental nature of the change and its significance—the Minister has, rightly, made great play of its importance—a degree of public involvement would be highly desirable. It is important that the review be a published document, available for inspection and subject to proper public scrutiny. That is our reason for the first part of the amendment.

Not only should the authority make clear what it has done to review its stock—so that people know that it is behaving properly and doing the job as well as it can be expected to do—and get a feel for the housing stock in the area, on which it might base all kinds of judgments and decisions, but it is equally important that we play fair by landlords. Lethargy is possible in a local authority—certainly not in a Conservative-controlled one, but perhaps in one that is Liberal Democrat-controlled—and so too is over-zealousness. The authority should also be responsible for scrutiny of its proposed actions.

The Minister was anxious to point out to the Committee that the private rented sector is fragile and that he is reticent to pile any more burdens on that sector. I well understand his argument. It is equally true that we need to reassure the private rented sector about the implications of the legislation. The Committee will be aware of the fears among landlords about some aspects of the Bill. It is not that they do not support the idea of bringing housing up to a decent standard and ensuring that the small minority of irresponsible landlords are dealt with harshly, or any other of the Bills proposals. However,

they are slightly worried that the power of enforcement that the Minister describes, which we have debated, and licensing—which we shall debate later and which I shall not go into now because you would not let me, Mr. Pike—will be too heavy a hand. I do not necessarily share that view, but I believe it to be important that it is articulated and taken into account by the Committee.

The Minister's desire to ensure that we do not discourage the private rented sector is most welcome and should reassure those in that sector that the implementation of the Bill will be equitable and measured, as he assured us it would be. It is important that local authorities reflect that sort of measured approach, and make it clear what they will do on the basis of what they have done. In other words, they must clarify what enforcement action they intend to take based on their review of their housing stock.

We made a judgment about public involvement and about reassuring landlords, and we were stimulated to table an amendment that would require the local authority to make public a report on housing in its district and to publish what action it intends to take before that action is taken. That would serve those dual purposes and would improve the Bill. It would make the legislation more palatable and more widely understood, and it would perhaps cut across some of the complexity with which local authorities and we are faced when dealing with this matter, and which many landlords, let alone the wider public, find incomprehensible. In those interests, and in the interests of transparency, objectivity and clarity so well articulated by the Minister, the Government would do well to embrace the amendments with enthusiasm and vigour, because I believe that they would improve the Bill.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings seeks to put himself in the centre of British politics and to suggest that the Liberal Democrats have moved to the extreme right. I can assure him that that is not the case. On this situation we wish to—[Interruption.] Was the Minister wanting to say that he has the mantle of the far right on this Committee? I somehow doubt it.

The purpose of amendments Nos. 217 and 218 is to encourage us to think seriously about the extra responsibilities and duties that will be placed on both local authorities and landlords. The Government propose that the review of housing conditions should take place at least once a year. I am not sure that that is right; our proposal of at least once every two years would give a better balance. It is right that we discuss this matter. In their document on freedoms and flexibilities for local government, the Government say that they are trying to remove the burdens, the regulations and the reports required, but in this case they seem to be adding a new one.

If our amendments are read together, it is clear that we are suggesting that within a year of the implementation of the Bill, every local housing authority will carry out a review and produce a report, so we will make rapid progress with the new system. However, after that first report has been

produced, it does not seem necessary to repeat that exercise every twelve months. I am not sure that the use of officer time and taxpayers' money and the burden that it might impose on landlords and on tenants are justified.

I would like to understand why the Government have chosen that approach. We do not seek to undermine the system; we embrace it and support it. However, we ask how often the reviews of housing conditions in a local authority area are really needed. Important as they are, I do not think that they are needed once a year—that seems slightly over the top. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings may think that I am moving far to the right with that statement, but I am trying to occupy the centre ground.

Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)

This is very important part of the Bill. With a review at least once a year, the authority will tally up everything that has happened—the number of prosecutions under the terms of the various parts of the Bill, for instance—and produce some sort of report about the condition of the licensing of the HMOs in their area. Clause 3(3) states that the authority must keep records, in particular for ''the appropriate national authority''—the Government, or the National Assembly for Wales.

I want to tease out of the Minister what information will be in the public domain. That is of relevance to my speech in the previous debate. When environmental health officers go into a property with score sheets and come out having done an assessment, will that be a public document?

Let us say that the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale is concerned about the state of properties in her constituency. The environmental health officers of her local authority will inspect them and produce reports on all of them. As the Minister said in the previous debate, after the completion of those score sheets, conditions may be set on a particular property. They might be low-level conditions: the property might not have exposed wires, which is a high risk, or it might be cold and damp and inappropriate for young children. Would the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale be able to access through the internet or a register the inspections of all the HMOs in her constituency, or would such matters be purely between the environmental health officer and the landlord? If the latter, the documents would not be public, so somebody who was going to rent from a particular landlord would not know the precise nature of the inspection of a property or the scoring by the environmental health officer.

If a system is to work in terms of risk assessment for individuals, that information must be in the public domain. If it is not in the public domain, the landlord and the busy council officers may be aware of it, and it may be in a dusty file in a dusty room in the hon. Lady's local authority, but those to whom that information may be useful—the public, the Member of Parliament, local authority councillors—will not necessarily have access.

I am trying to tease out of the Minister whether there will be a big register in a local authority that contains all those reports with, perhaps at the end, a summary of what action was or was not taken. It is fairly easy to find out when enforcement action has been taken, but I presume that the point of the system is to avoid enforcement action if possible, because it is expensive and because people are in danger until that course of action is followed through, which can take a long time. What we want is somebody to go in, do the scoring and come up with recommendations, and for the landlord to say that they will immediately go away and carry them out because they are a good landlord—and because if they are not a good landlord they may be prosecuted or have conditions put on their property.

The Bill sets down that there should be the annual report—which may be a nicely published document with glossy pictures—and there might be information that the Government is required to answer to questions from Members of Parliament who are interested in housing, but we do not know how the fruits of all the work of environmental health officers surveying properties will be put in the public domain or made available to those within a local community.

Mr David Kidney (Stafford, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is making good points. It is important that the public are able to inspect the records. The Bill suggests that the local authority must keep records. The present relevant Act of Parliament is the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, which will be superseded on 1 January next year by the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Those records must be made public, unless there is a reason to exempt them. I cannot think of a reason why they would be exempted: can the hon. Gentleman?

While the hon. Gentleman is thinking about that, I will mention that he is supporting amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings that want to go further by making the local authority carry out a review every year and publish every action that it is going to take. I presume that he does not want there to be any exemptions to that.

Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)

My hon. Friend and I are trying to tease out the Government's proposals, not ours. The proposed system is complex and we are trying to understand how it will operate—and I think that, on occasion, the Minister is trying to understand that, too.

If an environmental health officer makes a report and gives it to a landlord, it is reasonable that that landlord be given time to put matters right. One would not want to put a bad or critical report on a website or in a register from day one, without the individual concerned having had time to put matters right. If one goes around looking for things, one is bound to find something wrong, even in properties managed by responsible landlords. In order to be fair to landlords and provide all the relevant information, any appropriate action taken by a landlord should, if possible, be added to the report. For example, one could say in the report, ''This is the score, these are the

problems; this is what was done.'' Otherwise, people may be scared by a lot of out-of-date information that is not relevant to the property because action has been taken. We need the whole picture.

I am trying to tease out of the Minister what information will be available, at what point. Will the information be available in a form that will enable one to go to the local authority office and either tap into it via a computer or look at it in a paper volume? For example, someone may want to peruse reports on 50 houses in multiple occupation in Morecambe because they want to move to a safe place with a good record. The advantage of the system is that it may become more apparent who the bad and good landlords are. That may be part a young couple's informed choice on where they live.

Will the Minister tell us what information is likely to be in the public domain, and what format it will be in? What is fair both to landlords—we ought to be fair to them—and those seeking to occupy their properties? People may spend a lot of money assessing properties. If the relevant information is a big secret, the objective of the system, which is to make properties safe for families and individuals, will not be met.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

Clause 3 is a general provision that requires local housing authorities to keep housing conditions in their areas under annual consideration, with a view to determining what action they should take. The provisions clause 3(2)(a) and (b) set out possible courses of action to deal with hazards identified under the health and safety rating system. The provisions in paragraphs (c) and (d), which declare renewal areas and provide financial assistance for home repair and improvement respectively are more general measures that stand independent of the Bill.

The provisions are designed simply to ensure that local authorities consider the condition of the properties in their areas. We are eager for local housing authorities to develop housing strategies and we encourage them to have a view on which properties they ought to prioritise for inspection. We are not a regulatory Government; we are unrepentantly new Labour. I do not wish to load anything more than that on authorities in this context. Conversely, and in response to amendment No. 218, neither do I want to weaken that requirement.

This is a bizarre turn of events: the Liberal Democrats, of all people, are in non-regulatory mode and the Conservatives, judging by the comments made by the hon. Member for Poole, are in passionate freedom of information mode. The succinct answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about the public availability of the assessments and documents is: I do not know. There may be data protection issues. I will come back to him and the Committee on that question.

I can, however, reassure the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who talked about the value of authorities publishing an annual report on housing in their district as a useful device to provide clarity for landlords, that there will be plenty of

guidance to ensure that landlords understand the new system and the powers of the local authority.

Amendment No. 180 requires authorities to publish details of their intentions before introducing discretionary licensing. The hon. Gentleman did not dwell on the matter, but I presume that he had in mind what the Bill calls additional licensing under part 2. I am not sure why that particular measure has been singled out for discussion from all the courses of action available to authorities. However, I draw the Committee's attention to clause 45, which requires authorities to consult those who are likely to be affected by the designation of an area, to be subject to additional licensing, and to consider any representations made in accordance with the consultation.

In the light of my response, I urge the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to withdraw the amendments.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

The Minister has barely made a convincing case. I am tempted to push the amendments, although my hon. Friends take a rather more measured view of the Minister's performance—[Interruption.] Not of the Minister, but of the Minister's performance.

I think that it is important that at some stage of our deliberations we receive more information about the ability of members of the public and others to access relevant information. I congratulate the Minister on his honesty in telling us that he did not know the current position. However, it would be most lamentable if we were not given more information during the later stages of the Bill.

A good point has been made about allowing appropriate access to information by tenants and potential tenants and by landlords. Whether that takes the form of an annual statement, as I have proposed, or of making the information availability for inspection, as suggested by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), is a matter of legitimate debate. However, I am not satisfied by the idea that those documents would not be available at all. I think that it was Beveridge, whom the Minister quoted earlier, who said that ignorance is a weed that is often grown by dictators and despots. We do not want ignorance to be the watchword so far as access to relevant information is concerned.

I did not receive an assurance from the Minister. However, on the happy expectation that we will be told more about the availability of information about properties and that the Minister, with his typical charm and good will, will make such information available to the Committee, I am happy to withdraw my amendments as the hour is getting late.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I do not want the Committee to think that this is a fit of pique, but the Minister did not answer my point, save to suggest that all Labour Members were all now signed up to new Labour. The point was not a new deregulatory mission of mine—I am not in any way in favour of regulation unless it is really needed, although it is needed in some of these cases. However, I do not see why the report is required

at least every year. The Minister has not answered that point.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

Perhaps I can help the Minister by pointing out to the hon. Gentleman that because the housing market for the private rental sector is fragile and therefore susceptible to trends, it changes rapidly. The rate of sale of properties purchased to rent, for example, tends to be faster than that of properties purchased for owner-occupation. The pace of that change means that it is important that we keep a constant eye on it. In this case, I would rather side with the Minister and say that a regular review is necessary. I do not want to be over-regulatory, but the data that I hope will be made public for inspection—I am sure that the Minister will tell us how that can be done—must be accurate

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on at least having a stab at a justification. However, I am unsure whether the Minister would offer the same justification or another. I should like to hear from the Minister why the housing authorities must consider housing conditions in their districts on these points every year. If I am not satisfied, I shall have to press amendments Nos. 217 and 218—with your agreement, Mr. Pike.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

I rise reluctantly to respond to the point, which seems to be a question about angels dancing on a pinhead. All that we are stipulating in the Bill is that each year the local housing authority should carry out a review of all the stock for which it has responsibility—that is to say, under the Bill's provisions, all the stock in its locality. Under the terms of the Housing Act 1985 there is already such a requirement on local authorities. We are asking for a consideration, not a report. We expect local authorities to keep records, which can be made available to the national authority. In a fit of greater generosity to the hon. Gentleman than I would be inclined to indulge in, it would appear that my officials are willing to consider every two years. With that, but without a commitment, I sit down.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I shall not ask the Committee to vote on the amendments, but I think that the first strike goes to the Liberals.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 219, in

clause 3, page 3, line 42, at end insert—

'(v) any sections as they relate to empty residential premises'.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Empty Homes (Management orders)—

'The Secretary of State will by order introduce a scheme for Empty Homes Management Orders within 12 months of Royal Assent, subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses.'.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

As usual, I shall try to help the Government. In the early summer of 2003 they issued a consultation paper, ''Empty Homes:

Temporary Management, Lasting Solutions''. The end of the consultation period was 22 August 2003. The Government are rightly considering—not before time—what measures they should take to end the scandal of empty homes. As we heard in earlier debates about the lack of affordable housing and overcrowding, we desperately need measures to tackle the crisis. Using some of the empty homes in high-demand areas would be a quick, cost-effective, environmentally sustainable solution.

My constituency, Kingston and Surbiton, has an affordable housing crisis. We have a lot of empty homes, primarily in the private sector. There are three roads just off the Hook junction off the Kingston A3 bypass—Brook road, Haycroft road and Gladstone road—where there are, at the last count, 22 family properties that have been empty for over a year. When there are more than 1,000 families in temporary accommodation in Kingston borough, one begins to see how outrageous that is. I shall not go into details, save to say that I and some local councillors are trying to persuade the owners of the properties to put those homes into useful occupation. It is clear from that example, and from many others arising from my discussions with the Empty Homes Agency, that the Government are right to consult. However, the local authorities need extra powers, so that when a landlord cannot be encouraged, bribed or incentivised to put those empty homes back on the housing market, there are back-stop powers with safeguards that can be used.

The consultation document from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is very good, so on opening the final draft of the Bill I was surprised to see that the Government were not even giving themselves the power to introduce one of the options in the consultation paper. The Select Committee was surprised, too, and recommendation 35 in its report on the draft Housing Bill says:

''We recommend that the Bill introduces Compulsory Leasing Orders to allow local authorities to take over the management of empty properties.''

It was quite right to do so.

The consultation document describes four options, on which it is consulting. The first option is to do nothing, and it is pretty clear that the Select Committee, Labour Back Benchers, certainly the Liberal Democrats and, I understand, Ministers are not in do-nothing mode. The other three options are all about giving local authorities the power to assume temporary management control of empty homes in one way or another.

New clause 2 uses the phraseology of the consultation paper to give the Secretary of State the power to introduce the scheme for empty homes management orders by order, subject to affirmative procedure. I agree with the Government that that is a huge topic. They need to act urgently on it, and I am staggered that they have not used the legislation as a vehicle for taking action. I am pretty sure that the Minister wants to do something on the subject. Certainly, I cannot believe that the Government would have issued such a detailed consultation

document just last year if they were not minded to do something. The sustainable communities plan mentioned taking action.

We have a suitable vehicle before us, and much of part 4, which deals with interim management orders and final management orders, creates exactly the framework that would be needed for empty homes management orders; it fits them perfectly. This is the legislation that is needed. We all know how difficult it is to get parliamentary time for primary legislation, which is what would be required to introduce empty homes management orders, so I honestly do not see why the Government are not coming forward now.

I feel passionate about the subject, because I cannot stand the fact that there are constituents in my area, and no doubt across the country, who are in bed and breakfast, or in temporary or overcrowded accommodation, while there are homes that have already been built and could be occupied tomorrow but cannot be used. It is time to act; this country should have acted on the issue years ago, and now we have the chance.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman said that he had done an analysis of empty properties in his constituency. He was, of course, referring to the empty properties in the private sector. I should be interested to know two things. First, did he speak only to private landlords about properties that were not let for one reason or another, or did he extend his net to include private properties that had never been let but just happened to be empty for some reason? I take an amateur's interest in the subject, but the central point that I have come to is that there are a number of reasons why private properties are empty. It may be the death of the owner, a problem with the estate, or the need to refurbish the property significantly—I need not list all the reasons. I am interested to know how wide the hon. Gentleman proposes to cast his net in dealing with the real problem of empty properties in the private as well as public sector.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

My personal position is that I have cast the net quite wide to include all residential premises, whether they have been previously let or not. The Government have described different options in the consultation paper. My new clause does not preclude the Government from going around with different-sized nets; they could go either broad or narrow. I am deliberately leaving the new clause quite general so that the Government's hands are not tied in their choice of options. I understand the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman says, but there are many good reasons why properties are left empty. I am not sure whether he has had a chance to read the consultation paper, which says that the Government are thinking about the safeguards that will be needed to look after the genuine property rights of people who have a good reason for leaving a property empty.

During my discussions with the Empty Homes Agency I have been concerned about cases where there is an elderly person who does not want the hassle, or perhaps an elderly person who has begun to suffer from dementia and has to go into a care home. I am anxious to ensure that the legislation that is introduced

to give compulsory leasing orders to local authorities also provides safeguards to those categories of people. That is important. I am pleased to say that the Government's consultation paper takes such issues into account.

We cannot ignore this matter any more. The hon. Gentleman, who is a London Member, will know how difficult the housing crisis is, and how difficult it can be to get planning permission to build new houses—yet here we have homes that are already built. It will be very cheap to get those back into the market. Long planning inquiries will not be required. It will not damage our precious green fields. Let us use those houses. I know that some people are worried about property rights, and I share those worries, but the Government have got the balance right.

The House has passed compulsory purchase orders that do not just borrow the property for a short period, as this measure would. Empty homes management orders only borrow the property and give temporary management controls, before handing it back to the owner in due course. During the course of the order, provision can be made for paying rental income to the underlying freeholder. Compulsory purchase orders go much further and are a much greater infringement of property rights than what is envisaged in this worthy consultation paper.

As always I am trying to help the Government implement their own policies, which include ideas that we have supported for many years. If the Minister cannot accept the amendment tonight—I doubt whether he will—I hope that he will at least give the Committee an indication that his mind is not totally closed and that this idea could somehow, at some stage, find its way into the Bill.

Mr. Hayes rose—

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

Before I call Mr. Hayes, I have to say that I used to go to school along the A3 every day until I left in 1954. I am sure that that fact will not influence the debate at all.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

That has certainly informed my contribution, Mr. Pike, not least because I am a little surprised; I assumed that you were at school much more recently.

The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton made his point on an inadequate amendment that is proposed at the wrong stage. Nevertheless, it contains a kernel of truth. His passion on this subject is to mine what a boy scout's bonfire is to Dante's inferno. That is not surprising, because mine is the party that has championed vulnerable people throughout its existence, whereas his is the party of Cobden and Bright, and others, who defended putting boys up chimneys. I do not mean to be unkind, but it is important to put Liberal amendments in the context of their sorry history. However, he is right in saying that this matter deserves to be aired and that the Government frustrated proper expectations when they failed to include any detail on it in the Bill. After extensive consultation and discussion on this subject by all parties, including political parties and people outside the House, there was a reasonable

expectation that we might move forward with some proposals on empty homes.

This is a complex area involving issues surrounding property rights, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) alluded. It would be monstrous if people were obliged to rent out property against their will due to legislation that was perfectly properly designed to expand the number of homes available. However, it is entirely appropriate for us to find ways to provide incentives for people who might not otherwise consider renting out properties. Many people might jump at the chance of doing so, with considerable benefit to themselves, and to the wider community by making additional accommodation available in the way that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton suggested. We must examine the balance between obligation and incentive in terms of private property.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

As the hon. Gentleman has said, the incentive route has been tried. It is in place and we support it. We would prefer to be able to persuade owners of empty properties to put them back on the market voluntarily. However, I have a question for him and his party to answer. Would they allow back-stop powers if, after reasonable discussion, approaches and incentives, houses remain empty for years and undermine a community? Would the Conservative party take no action? That is the logic of his party's position to date, and the logic of the position that he has outlined today.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

On the contrary, I could hardly have explained my position in more colourful terms. I am passionate about finding ways to bring empty homes into use as part of the housing stock, particularly as rented accommodation in the private sector. The Empty Homes Agency estimates there to be about 750,000 empty homes, many of which are private houses owned by individuals or families, who are not encouraged or inspired to rent them out.

The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton gave the example of someone owning a property due to an elderly relative dying. The probate might take a while, as might the process of selling the house. That person would not think about renting out the property, but if they were financially encouraged, perhaps through tax or some other means, they might do so for a period of six or nine months. That would greatly and conveniently increase the number of short-term rented properties available, because it would require no planning or building.

There is a separate issue about properties linked to commercial premises, such as flats or rooms above shops. There is a range of ways that shopkeepers and owners of such properties could be encouraged to put them to use. They could be counted as potential empty homes.

A third group of properties are those in local authority care—I use that word with caution—that remain empty. Travelling through urban areas in a Liberal Democrat or Labour controlled borough, one will see many boarded-up and empty council properties. There are even a few in Conservative

boroughs, which is surprising but true. Responsible people have an obligation to ask themselves, ''What are we going to do about that?'' Those properties often remain empty for too long, and there are real problems and inconsistencies. The Minister will know that the record of dealing with empty properties, and the speed of processing them, varies enormously among different local authorities. We could bring forward appropriate measures to cover that issue.

The final group of properties, on which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton was right to press me, consists of properties owned by people who have no intention of letting them. It might be not simply because they have not considered it, or have not been encouraged to do so, but because they are determined not to. Boarded-up properties have a very detrimental effect on the value of neighbouring properties and on whole communities. We all know of cases of owners who buy up streets of houses or parts of streets, allow them to remain vacant for a long time and deteriorate, and then board them up. That is having a really damaging effect on communities, and it is appropriate to consider what action might reasonably be taken.

Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton North, Labour)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are provisions in the legislation to deal with precisely the circumstances that he describes?

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

Yes, but they are in a later section of the Bill. That is why I said in my opening remarks that, as well as being too limited an amendment, it is in the wrong place. As the hon. Lady suggests, at a later stage we could consider amending the Bill to expand what is there already to take into account some of my other points about empty homes. Who knows? It might be that an appropriate new clause or amendment—of a more specific kind—sallies forth at an appropriate point, allowing us to do precisely what the hon. Lady suggests and making sensible changes to the provisions to which she refers.

I am determined that we on the Conservative Benches should take a thoughtful but bold move towards working with all those of good will to come up with a strategy for empty homes. It would not be as dictatorial or as nit-picking—it would certainly not be as intolerant—a strategy as one that might be proposed by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. Perhaps I am wrong, but he seems to suggest that he wants to tread on the toes of those who might, perfectly properly and for good family or personal reasons—

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I am talking about safeguards.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman has drawn back from the position that I thought he was beginning to take. Any policy should deliver real results in terms of empty homes. I am sympathetic to those at the Empty Homes Agency—I have met them and they have made their case to me—and to some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman about the scale of the problem, the failure to act and the frustrated expectations caused by what the Bill does not say. However, I shall not support his amendment, because it is in the wrong part of the Bill and it is too limited.

We expect the Government to come up with a clear explanation as to why they have not included much on the matter, and what they intend to do about it, how and when. If they do not, not only will the Empty Homes Agency and the hon. Gentleman be disappointed, but so will the many people who would be able to gain access to an affordable rented home if the Government acted in the way suggested by the Empty Homes Agency and recommended by the hon. Gentleman and me.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

I start by offering the Committee the reassurance that the Government are genuinely seized of the importance of the issue. I want to say a little more about our approach to empty residential homes specified in the amendments. First, I hope that the Committee will be interested in the report that I received in June 2003 of the flats above shops taskforce established by the British Property Federation. It looks at the enormous opportunities in that sector, estimating that it has the potential to accommodate 300,000 people. That would not only serve our purposes in reducing the problems of homelessness and resolving other housing issues, but revitalise our inner-city areas and town centres. We are now carrying forward the eleven proposals and recommendations in conjunction with other national agencies. It has already been said that it is estimated that 300,000 residential properties are standing empty in the long term. As hon. Members have said, a combination of action in both areas would go a long way to address our problems with housing supply.

Before I deal with the amendment and new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, representing the party of Bright and Cobden, I shall turn my attentions to the representative of the party of Shaftesbury and Disraeli, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. It is possibly the party of the vulnerable, but historically it has been the party of property par excellence. I am fascinated to discover that Conservatives felt frustrated by the Government's failure to include measures on empty homes in the Bill. I feel a tremendous welling up of affection towards the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, not only because of his constituency title.

However, the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He referred to his party's support for the incentive schemes, which were introduced under the previous Conservative Administration by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). Although those schemes were proper, desirable and commendable, the debate has moved on, and the hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt where the debate on empty homes is now focused.

The hon. Gentleman said that it would be monstrous if people were obliged to let their property against their will, but the point of the proposals for compulsory leasing is for local authorities to step in to manage such properties irrespective of the owner's will. That is where the debate has reached and where the Conservative party needs to nail its colours to the mast. Warm words simply will not do.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

The Minister makes light of the possibility of encouraging people by incentives such as tax breaks or grants, but I was specific in the difference that I described. I painted a picture that involved, first, private property in the hands of the family of a deceased person and, secondly, an irresponsible landlord who buys up a street of houses, keeps them empty for a considerable time and boards them up, thereby acting in a way that is detrimental to other householders and the rest of the community. The Minister has a better case on obligations in the latter situation. There is a qualitative difference between the two examples, and that must be addressed by a sensible strategy.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

To that extent, the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North are right, and there is provision in the Bill along those lines. However, we are dealing with measures primarily to deal with antisocial behaviour rather than the wider problem of housing supply, so even that cunning ploy does not get the hon. Gentleman off the hook.

Amendment No. 219, tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, would require local authorities to pay specific regard to empty residential properties in considering what action to take under the provisions in clause 3. The amendment is unnecessary because empty properties will be accommodated under the hazard assessment system provided for in part 1.

The housing health and safety rating system will enable hazards to be assessed in the light of the actual or potential occupier most vulnerable to the hazard. For instance, a property that is likely to be occupied by a family with children can be assessed on that basis whether or not it is empty for the time being. In addition, clause 1(5) makes specific provision for unoccupied HMO accommodation if the premises in question are constructed or adapted for use as an HMO but are unoccupied, or not occupied as an HMO for the time being.

I turn now to new clause 2 and the proposed order on empty property management orders. I stress that the Government are committed to tackling the pernicious effects of empty homes. The case for action is clear. There are 300,000 long-standing private-sector empty homes in England. They blight communities and are a magnet for vandals. They tie up the resources of local authorities and the emergency services. Above all, bringing empty homes back into use will provide much-needed housing and reduce the need for land to develop new homes on urban fringes and in the countryside.

We have been considering the concept of compulsory leasing as recommended by the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee in its report on empty homes in autumn 2002. We published our proposals on 22 May 2003, in a consultation paper entitled, ''Empty Homes: Temporary Management, Lasting Solutions''. In it, we considered a range of options ranging from the existing voluntary arrangements to the provision, through legislation, of a new power to local

authorities to take on temporary management of such properties. The paper pointed out the need to be clear about the properties involved; they should not be second homes or commercial property or transactional vacant dwellings.

We are considering responses to the consultation, which ended on 22 August. Some issues need further consideration. They include, first, how to provide some form of temporary management role for local authorities, with all the necessary safeguards that might in some cases be justified. Secondly, we are aware that the proposal raises some fundamental issues about the right of public authorities to intervene in the legitimate business interests of private individuals. Thirdly, we need to consider how such a power would be funded so that local authorities are not discouraged from using it. It is clear that such concerns must be carefully weighed against the backdrop of public concern about the negative impact of empty homes. All survey data show strong support for action on empty homes. We therefore intend to produce a response to the consultation with detailed proposals.

The hon. Gentleman and others asked why such provisions were not included in the Bill. Frankly, the Bill deals with a number of pressing and well-developed commitments. The truth is that empty homes management orders are a relatively a new concept, and we need fully to consider the impact of the proposals before we can contemplate legislation. It is important, in an area that so fundamentally impinges on property rights, that we get our approach right. Rushing it through would be a prescription for bad legislation.

I hope that I have demonstrated not only to the hon. Gentleman but to the Committee that the Government take the issue of empty homes seriously. We are actively engaged on the question, but because of the weighty issues involved we are not in a position to propose legislation. That is why we cannot accept the Liberal Democrat amendment, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I am slightly disappointed by the Minister's response. He spent much of it saying how much he agreed, and that the Government were seized of the issue and wanted to take action. He then said that the Government would respond to the consultation in due course, but with no timetable for the response or the publication of draft legislation—and no timetable for action. I recognise that difficult issues are involved, which is why they were dealt with in the consultation paper. That is why there has been so much debate on the matter over such a long time. It is not a new policy proposal; it has been around for some time. The Empty Homes Agency has been punting it around. The Minister pointed out that the Select Committee first looked into the matter two years ago, when it took evidence and made proposals. We have already had plenty of debate.

One point that the Minister suggested might weigh against the adoption of my proposal was that it might cost local authorities money. That is a safeguard. The local authority would have to make a budget before deciding to use the power. The fact that it would have

to make such an investment would be a safeguard for property owners. Local authorities would not be able to use the power willy-nilly or without thinking whether they had a case that would stand up in court. The Minister should not be so worried about that aspect.

I shall not press the amendment to a Division. I can see that the Committee is restless and that the Whip will shortly want to jump to his feet. However, I hope that the Minister will think again. I am sure that, on Report or in another place, we will return to the issue.

I believe that some Labour Members are not happy about having to wait much longer; they, too, are looking to him and his colleagues to move quickly. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Paul Clark.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Five o'clock till Thursday 22 January at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.