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.

See this speech in context