Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 222, in

clause 9, page 7, line 33, at end insert—

'(2A) An improvement notice under this section may be served on any occupants of the residential premises concerned, but only to require such occupants not to obstruct or impede the completion of any remedial action required in a related improvement notice for those premises.'.

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 223, in

clause 9, page 8, line 13, at end insert—

'(5A) The improvement notice may require any remedial action that would render the property uninhabitable only to be taken after the occupants have been informed and had the opportunity to find alternative accommodation.'.

No. 224, in

clause 9, page 8, line 18, at end insert—

'(7A) A copy of the improvement notice may be displayed in the residential premises affected, at the discretion of the local housing authority.'.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

We now move on to chapter 2—''Improvement notices, prohibition orders and hazard awareness notices''. We have reached the beginning of the enforcement regime for the standard rating system that we have just discussed. My amendments, which also stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, relate to how the occupant of the premises is affected by improvement notices. I should say at the start that I had not got to schedule 1 prior to tabling my amendment. Some of my concerns, which I have raised through the amendment, pertain to later parts of the Bill, which the Government have covered. However, this is still a useful opportunity to bring out some of the issues. I shall try to do so briefly, because I know that we will deal with them later.

I seek to raise three points in tabling these amendments. First, how would the process deal with an occupant or tenant who was impeding and obstructing the implementation of an improvement notice? Amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings also deal with that. It is worth getting on the record the Minister's response about what process he envisages would be adopted where a tenant or occupant was obstructing and impeding the implementation of an improvement notice.

Secondly, amendments Nos. 223 and 224 related to how those tenants or occupants would be affected during the remedial works. How would they be informed—would they be given time to find alternative accommodation? Although I am sure that it is not in the Government's mind that tenants should suddenly be made homeless through this process, we must be sure that there is protection for them. I understand, after a closer reading of the Bill, that the Government have a process for doing that. Under paragraph 5(1) of schedule 1 there is a requirement for notices to be served on the occupants. I have not picked up on that point because I am more relaxed about it. However, I would like some clarification on how the improvement notice procedure would work to ensure that the tenant or occupant had a chance to find alternative accommodation. Again, I am already anticipating future debates, particularly on clause 12.

Thirdly, although clause 12 does not specify what would happen as clearly as it might, my impression is that it would, through the improvement notice procedure, allow the notice to be suspended until such time as the occupant or tenant had found alternative

accommodation, or some other event had happened. If I have understood the Bill incorrectly, perhaps the Minister would explain what protections there are for tenants and occupants who are in a property needing remedial action due to category 1 and category 2 hazards, and what will become of them during the process of remedial works.

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

I take the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. A number of answers to his questions are set out in the schedule. I understand that the Bill takes some working through and that he had not worked through to the schedule when he tabled his amendments. I have a degree of sympathy with him, so I will not be as cruel as my speaking notes.

Where a local authority has a duty to take the most appropriate enforcement action on a category 1 hazard under clause 5, the serving of an improvement notice under clause 9 is one of the courses of action available to it, unless the premises are already the subject of an interim management order or final management order under part 4. The notice requires the person on whom it is served—normally the owner or landlord—to take the remedial action specified in the notice. The minimum action required by a notice must be sufficient to ensure that there is no longer a category 1 hazard. A notice can require an owner to remove a category 1 hazard from residential premises, and to take action in non-residential premises where the deficiency that gives rise to the hazard is located—for example, if dampness rises from commercial premises that have flats immediately above them, and remedial action is necessary for the health or safety of actual or potential occupiers of those flats.

Improvement notices will perform the function of repair notices under the current fitness regime, and are likely to be the most common response to a hazard. Amendment No. 222 reveals a misunderstanding of why a notice is served on an occupant. Schedule 1, as the hon. Gentleman has now discovered, requires copies of notices to be served on occupiers and people with a relevant interest. That is for their benefit and it is a matter of their right to know what action is being taken. Let me pause at the issue of obstruction. There are separate provisions in part 7 that deal with that. I draw the Committee's attention to those provisions and to the provisions of clause 33, which set out the penalties incurred by the obstruction of the work by any party.

Amendment No. 223 is motivated by a decent desire to protect the interests of occupants. If there is a serious hazard, the authority will be concerned to start the remedial work as soon as possible or to move the tenant away from the hazard. The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the occupants' need for alternative accommodation. That is important, but we must remember that the tenant is moved away to remove the threat of a category 1 hazard from them. There is an urgency and priority about dealing with such a hazard, which may be threatening to life or limb. It would be wrong to leave a vulnerable tenant exposed to a high risk of injury.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I certainly appreciate what the Minister is saying and the Government's intentions. If a tenant is in danger because of a category 1 hazard, one must take action. However, homelessness might be more damaging to a person's well-being than staying for a short period once the hazard has been brought to their attention. What would happen to that person and their family while the process was going on? What provisions do the Bill, a notice or a local housing authority make to ensure that families are not made temporarily homeless? That might be even worse than the hazard.

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

If the local authority thinks that it would be safe, it can allow longer for the work to be carried out than the 28-day minimum period, if the occupants have a problem with that. An improvement notice will not always require the vacation of the premises; indeed, that would be an unusual situation. There is no universal prospect of large-scale homelessness. Indeed, consider experience heretofore of the application of the fitness standard. If interventions by local authorities were leading to significant levels of homelessness, we would all have heard about that as constituency MPs.

In all circumstances, the occupier will get a clear copy of the notice and the time scale under paragraph 5(1) of schedule 1. If the work is so substantial—I come to the hon. Gentleman's point—that it cannot be carried out without great difficulty, it may lead the authority to prohibit the use of the dwelling altogether and consider alternative accommodation for the tenant. We intend to address that point in the guidance. It would be inappropriate to lay on the local authority the kind of obligation the hon. Gentleman refers to; there are a variety of responses to such a situation. There may be circumstances in which it would be inappropriate for the authorities to provide temporary accommodation for a particular type of occupant. There must be flexibility for the local authority to vacate the premises in a small number of cases where it might be necessary. We will deal with that in the guidance.

Amendment No. 224 is unnecessary. There is nothing to prevent the authority from displaying a copy of the improvement notice in the residential premises, although it will not absolve them of the duty, in paragraph 5 of schedule 1, to serve a copy of the notice on the occupier. In light of my response, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister's answer was helpful. I am glad he was not too cruel with me.

The guidance will be crucial to this effect. Can the Minister give the Committee the assurance that if a tenant is asked to vacate a property quickly, as in the prohibition order—which we will come to—even though it may not be in statute, they will be provided with accommodation? Will he assure us that the guidance will make it clear when rehousing would be appropriate for a housing authority?

In view of the Minister's remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.