Clause 45 - Designation of areas subject to additional licensing
Housing Bill
10:30 am
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 252, in
clause 45, page 29, line 31, leave out paragraph (b).
Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley and Sidcup, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 253, in
clause 45, page 29, line 39, leave out 'persons' and insert 'both tenants and landlords'.
Amendment No. 255, in
clause 45, page 29, line 42, at end insert—
'(c) take reasonable steps to enter into working partnerships with such private sector landlords, agents and associations as may, in the opinion of the authority, be appropriate.'.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
It is extremely difficult for people like me, who have difficulty in coping with such complex matters, to move from one part of the Bill to another and turn pages backwards while doing so. However, I have struggled my way through it, and I am just about there. You, Mr. Conway, who are more skilled in such matters than I am, will realise that we are now back at page 29 and debating the subject of additional licensing.
This is an important matter. The clause creates discretion for local authorities to apply additional licensing when they deem it appropriate, as defined in clause 45. The clause makes specific reference to issues that may arise when an HMO that is being managed ''sufficiently ineffectively'' as to cause a range of problems for those who occupy the HMO or for members of the public.
The Committee will see that amendment No. 252 is a probing amendment. It obliges the Minister to explain how the Bill interacts and overlaps with, or even replaces, existing regulation. Powerful regulation is already available under the Housing Act 1985: as the Minister knows, that authorises local authorities to take action on badly run HMOs.
We do not seek to restrict local authorities from taking necessary action. However, by its nature, additional licensing is contentious. Landlords will be mindful of the fact that we are giving local authorities a significant power, and although the Bill describes the circumstances in which they might exercise that power in broad terms, it is important that the Government be more specific when the Bill is implemented. As has been said several times this morning, regulation will no doubt provide greater clarity.
Additional licensing will worry those who think that they might be unreasonably treated by an over-zealous local authority. Local authorities already have powers of entry to any property that they merely believe may be an HMO; and their discretion will allow them to define what, in practical terms, is ''ineffective management''. In such circumstances, existing legislation allows local authorities to issue a notice requiring work to be put in hand within 21 days; and, as we heard in a previous debate, local authorities already have the power to introduce local HMO registration schemes. Has the case for the necessity for additional licensing been made sufficiently persuasively? I am not entirely against it. On balance, my argument is not that the policy is indefensible, but that we need a persuasive case. When regulation extends as it does in this Bill—when powers are granted in addition to powers that already exist—a very persuasive case has to be made. As yet, the Minister has failed to convince me.
I do not imply any criticism of the Minister. He is an able man, but he is a busy man with other fish to fry. Perhaps he has not had enough time to devote to the subject, but unless he spends that time and uses all his powers of eloquence, all of his wit and wisdom, not only I will be unconvinced of the need to extend power in this respect, but the doubts of many landlords and organisations outside this place will be confirmed. I will waste no more time, because the Minister will want to be persuasive, as I suggested.
Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
That is a hell of a fence the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is sitting on in respect of additional licensing.
Getting back to the Minister's confusion about where the Liberal Democrats are coming from, amendment No. 255 is almost deregulatory and seeks a voluntary approach before the licensing route is used. Before making such a designation, the authority should work strategically with private landlords, agents and associations. The Minister can see that that would be preferable if it can be achieved, albeit with the threat of additional licensing. I am sure that the whole Committee would agree that it would be a good thing if we could improve standards without having recourse to additional licensing. This is just a probing amendment, and I am sure it is not perfectly framed. It is designed simply to ask the Minister why seeking a voluntary approach is not one of the things that the authority has to do before making the designation.
I cannot support the Conservative amendment, No. 252, because removing the phrase
''an area in their district''
would lead to over-regulation. If an authority wanted additional licensing, it would have to apply it throughout its district, rather than to the particular area within the district where there are particular problems and hence a need for additional licensing. The amendment is probing, unless the Conservatives really are going down the route of over-regulation—but who knows where they are going these days?
Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
I cannot support the amendment, and in the general terms of the need for additional licensing—[Interruption.] I wonder how many times that fire announcement will go off?
The other amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings touches on the general principle of additional licensing, and I firmly come down on one side of the fence: additional licensing is needed. It gives local authorities the power to deal with specific problems in their area, and we would be happy for that to happen. A good local authority could use it to deal with many exemptions from the Bill's provisions. With so many properties exempt, there is a danger that a local authority that is not remotely interested in providing resources, despite its general duty, will not pick up on additional licensing—but that is local democracy in action. If the local council does not do its job or use additional licensing, the electorate can throw councillors out.
The clause gives local authorities the power to consider areas that they want to license additionally, and we strongly support that. Our only concern is that a scheme will always be subject to the Secretary of State's approval. It is rather odd to give local authorities a power, but only if the Secretary of State agrees to its use. It would be much more in the spirit of new localism if the Minister gave the power to local authorities and let them frame it.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)
The Bill as it stands allows a housing authority to designate all or part of its area. In some parts of the country, there are local authorities that share a common frontage, for example, in seaside towns. It is not always clear, even to me when I am canvassing, where Bournemouth stops and Poole starts. That problem continues along the coast from Brighton and Hove through to Shoreham or Worthing. There would be no point in designating a mile of frontage in one district to try to improve the quality of HMOs if that allowed other parts of the frontage to be perceived as substandard or difficult. At the point of consultation or when setting out the objectives for an area, is there an element in the Bill to allow adjoining housing authorities to share a common objective of improving housing in a particular area, or is the focus wholly on a district, irrespective of the situation?
Dr Brian Iddon (Bolton South East, Labour)
I rise to speak briefly in support of clause 45. We in Bolton have 22,000 houses that are about 150 years old and not as well constructed as other houses of that age. In the 1960s we had about five general improvement areas, which are now in a state of decay. The problem arises when landlords move in and do not care what tenants they put into their properties. Antisocial
behaviour develops and the market begins to collapse. That has happened in several areas in Bolton and we have contained it, unlike in Burnley and Salford where there are whole streets of properties that people have walked away from because their value has fallen from about £30,000 to £2,000 or £3,000.
The measure is necessary to prevent market collapse in such areas. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning recently visited Bolton and saw one street where drug dealers and prostitutes have moved in. The measure is an important tool to control such behaviour.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
That is precisely why it may have appeared to the hon. Member for Ludlow that I was sitting on the fence. The truth is that in the vast majority of cases, an agreement with the private sector will be desirable. The local authority working in partnership with private sector will work, but there will be cases in which such a measure will be necessary, for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). It is not fair to assume that all landlords are good and reasonable people, even though the vast majority are.
Dr Brian Iddon (Bolton South East, Labour)
I accept that the vast majority of landlords are reasonable, and we have had a voluntary registration scheme in Bolton for some time. However, it is noticeable that the bad landlords do not join the scheme, so I am keen that the measure is left unamended in the Bill.
Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)
Before coming to the substance of my remarks, I shall respond to some of the questions raised during this useful debate.
The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings drew attention to the powers in Conservative legislation that authorised local authorities to take action against badly run properties. As he will know, that legislation conferred simply a power, not a duty, and the record of voluntary registration is mixed to say the least. Evidence of that is in the response to a written question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) on the operation of registration schemes in various authorities, which revealed that about one third of authorities do not engage in any registration scheme. Furthermore, the schemes that do exist are variable in nature: some are simply registration schemes, while others are registration-with-control schemes. That is why we have introduced a mandatory element in the Bill.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Ludlow, who at this juncture is back into regulatory mode. He said that he would come down firmly in favour of additional licensing and that some local authorities would not be remotely interested in such registration schemes. However, as he rightly said, that is a matter for local democracy, and if a council does not do its job, the electorate can throw it out. I dare say that, in view of the fact that his Liberal Democrat-controlled South Shropshire district council has never implemented a registration scheme of any kind—the
Committee will be shocked to hear that—the electorate of the area will draw their own conclusions and take the necessary action in due course. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings on the fact that his local authority has implemented a registration scheme.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
This might be an appropriate opportunity, perhaps not for the last time, to inform the Minister that South Holland district council—happily Conservative controlled since 1999—has an exemplary record as a local authority in general and a housing authority in particular. I know that the Minister will want to study its good practice in many different areas relevant to the Bill so that it can be exported to other authorities—Conservative, Labour and even Liberal Democrat.
Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)
I was going to say that we have had enough of this guerrilla warfare. I do not want to undermine the splendid spirit of constructive exchange that has dominated our proceedings so far.
Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
I should be delighted if the Minister came to south Shropshire and showed me the properties that could be in a licensing scheme. The reality is that in a scattered rural community, there are practically no properties that would fall into the category of HMO. There may be one or two, but I am not aware of any substantial number of properties that could be categorised as such. I am sure that he will do some research on the matter, but he ought to take into account the nature of an area before saying whether a council should incur the unnecessary costs of implementing schemes into which, quite frankly, there are no properties to be brought.
Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)
Methinks the hon. Gentleman protests too much—I think that we have scored a palpable hit. It is up to the hon. Gentleman to justify the derogation of his local authority from its proper responsibilities.I hope to persuade him that his amendment is, in that splendid parliamentary word, otiose. However I shall come on to that in due course.
The hon. Member for Poole made a sensible point—if I may so without sounding patronising—about local authorities with, as it were, common frontage. That is certainly an issue. The answer to his question on whether local authorities could have common schemes is that if they want such schemes, they can certainly have them. We are aware of the issue of emigration of troublesome parties, who might be landlords or, in terms of selective licensing, tenants. In general terms we are eager that local authorities with common problems should work together.
I am extremely grateful for the moral support offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East. I remember with pleasure my day in Bolton looking at both problems and successes. We made a very interesting visit to the Haulgh district, where we saw both problems and evidence of progress. In other areas, we saw what we agreed were wonderful examples of regeneration in communities that were beginning to cohere and progress. It was a memorable day.
I take my hon. Friend's point: the large, multi-tenanted properties that we saw in the Haulgh district
of Bolton may be obvious candidates for the kind of provision that we are discussing. However, he will be aware that there are other parts of his constituency with different types of tenure and ownership where the selective licensing regime—the Committee is about to come on to that—may be more appropriate. I am grateful for his wise words and support.
Clause 45 allows a local authority to designate part or all of its area as subject to additional HMO licensing for specified descriptions of HMOs. That means that a local authority will have discretion to extend the scope of HMO licensing to HMOs that fall outside the scope of the mandatory system. Additional licensing could apply to HMOs that have less than three storeys and/or are occupied by fewer than five people. We know, for example, that some local authorities are likely to use additional licensing to target properties occupied by students that are particularly badly managed. Such properties are often two storeys and are occupied by four people. I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) were here to hear these reassuring words.
I am sure that we all want regulation to be targeted on properties where the worst problems exist. Often, those types of property are concentrated in a particular area: for example, as I have said, areas with high numbers of properties let to students. Many local authorities could use their discretion under existing HMO licensing and have applied it only to specific parts of their area.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
The Minister has made provision in the Bill to inform people who might be affected by such a designation. The Bill states at clause 45(3)(a) that ''reasonable steps'' must be taken. A large number of people will be affected—landlords, tenants and also other members of the public in the area designated. He said that it might be narrow; it might be a whole estate; it might be a neighbourhood or a single street. What kind of reasonable measures to inform people do the Government have in mind: written notification, notices on lamp posts, advertisements in the local paper?
Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)
We will come later to provisions for exactly such notification. The posting of notices, the sending of publicity materials and advertising in local newspapers are mostly specified as the means of communication with those to be affected by a licensing regime. We are conscious of the fact—this is what I want to say in due course in response to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ludlow—that in these matters we are dealing not only with landlords and tenants, although they are critical to the process, but with the wider community. Therefore, we are conscious of the need for communication to go to the wider community. The problems with which we are dealing in parts 2 to 4 of the Bill in normal circumstances affect the wider community. We will return to that matter in due course.
Amendment No. 252 would prevent the targeting of the registration and licensing arrangements to specific areas within a local authority: if an authority felt a need to regulate a certain part of its market, it would
have to introduce licensing across the entire area. That would clearly result in unneeded regulation of landlords, and it would mean that local authorities would not be able to focus their efforts where they were really needed.
As part of our desire to see regulation used appropriately, before making a designation a local authority must also consider that a significant proportion of the HMOs specified is giving rise to problems for the HMO's occupants or members of the public because of poor management arrangements. When coming to that decision a local authority must consider the extent to which HMO managers in the area have complied with the code of practice approved under clause 171.
A local authority must also consult those likely to be affected by the designation and take account of any representations received. Already implicit in the provisions is the requirement for communication as part and parcel of that consultation process.
Amendment No. 253, also in the name of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, proposes that local authorities should consult both tenants and landlords before making a designation. In practice, the amendment would restrict those persons to be consulted for reasons to which I have already referred. Although landlords and tenants are obviously the people who will generally be most affected by a proposal to extend licensing, they are not the only people whose views may matter. Mismanagement of HMOs can have a significant effect on, for example, other local residents. For that reason, we require consultation of people who would have a relevant interest in an additional licensing designation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accepts that that is the correct approach. The views of landlords and tenants are important, but they are not the sole interested parties.
Amendment No. 255 was tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow, who is one third of the notional Liberal Democrat representation on the Committee. I hope that I can persuade him that what the Bill provides is not too far away from what the amendment suggests. The amendment would require a local authority to ''take reasonable steps'' to work with landlords, agents and associations before licensing. I am the first to encourage better relationships between landlords and local authorities. Many local authorities have shown that there can be benefits for all concerned in a better working relationship between landlords, tenants and local authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East is right to say, however, the problem is often that only the good and willing landlord will engage in such schemes.
Clause 46(4)(a) already requires that a designation cannot be made unless other alternatives—for example, voluntary accreditation—have been considered. Therefore, licensing will be used to deal with problems with specific categories of property in areas where alternative solutions alone have not worked or would not work.
There is not a great deal of difference between what the Government want to happen and what the amendment would require. Under our proposals, a local authority will be required to consider whether working with landlords would work before going for additional licensing. The amendment suggests that the authority take steps that it considers appropriate to enter into working partnerships with landlords before making a designation.
The amendment would have little practical effect. As with other amendments, the hon. Member for Ludlow seems to be worrying that local authorities will not do what is best. Of course, that might well be the case in his local authority, but on the whole we do not want to go too far down the path of chastising that body; I am sure that he will take the message back to south Shropshire.
I hope that I have explained clearly the approach that we have taken in the clause and why the amendments are unnecessary. I invite the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to withdraw the amendment. [Interruption.] I am advised by the silent ones who do not exist that it may be necessary to correct a point made in response to the hon. Gentleman in our debate on clause 193, so may I, in all humility, take this opportunity to correct a misapprehension that he may have picked up from my earlier comments? Additional licensing can extend only to houses falling within the definition of an HMO, so if a converted block has less than one third short-term tenants, it is not an HMO and cannot be subject to licensing, although the provisions of part 1 on the health and safety rating system still apply.
Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
The interesting piece of inspiration about the earlier amendments that just arrived with the Minister is somewhat concerning. I imagine that he will want to consider that point, because there will be circumstances in which there are sizeable groups of tenanted flats in a large block that is more than two thirds owner-occupied. He may want to consider how he will get round that problem, because I cannot imagine that he intends it to arise. I suspect that he will want to seek further inspiration as to how he can deal with that loophole.
On amendment No. 255, I am satisfied that clause 46(4)(a) provides that local authorities must have tried something else beforehand.
I am a bit concerned that the Minister might want the regulations to apply where there are no properties to be regulated. Perhaps that is why in south Shropshire there is not and has never been a Labour councillor. The last Labour member, who was elected as an independent, was knocked off the council five years ago. The Government have an over-regulatory zeal and want council officers to sit around doing nothing because there is nothing to license. That is clearly the path down which the Minister wants to go.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
It seems to me that the Minister has made a persuasive case about licensing. I acknowledged that I was already leaning towards that because of the kind of arguments that were
powerfully made by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East. Although landlords have concerns about how additional licensing will be applied, there are circumstances in which voluntary arrangements and schemes, such as those that work well in South Holland, are not effective. I am interested in what the Minister said about the patchy nature of those schemes, and in how much that reflects the assiduity of local authorities or is caused by local circumstances, such as those described in Bolton. Bad landlords may tend to concentrate in certain areas, and that may mean that a scheme is unlikely to succeed, even if the local authority is anxious to do its best. Our amendments were designed to probe the Minister, and a good case has been made.
The amendment that deals with tenants and landlords being consulted was not designed to exclude other people, although, as the Minister suggested, that is the practical implication. It was designed to highlight the fact that landlords must be centrally involved in the process. It is a matter of salience to a wider public: to tenants, because they are vulnerable and are likely to be the ones who suffer, and to landlords. We are anxious to ensure fairness for landlords and tenants; that is the best way to proceed with legislation. However, I accept what the Minister said and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.