Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 256, in

clause 47, page 30, line 41, at end insert—

'(2A) The appropriate national authority must issue general guidance on the factors and issues it will have regard to when exercising its powers under subsection (2).'.

This is the amendment to which I briefly alluded earlier. It is designed to find out why the Minister wants to be able to veto local authorities' attempts to deal with bad landlords, which is what clause 47 does. Amendment No. 256 is not designed to remove the Secretary of State's power, because I know that I would come up against a brick wall—the Minister would resist that because, instead of trusting local people to get rid of councillors, he wants to have the power to jump on local authorities if he does not think they are doing their job correctly.

The amendment is designed to ensure that the Secretary of State, or in Wales the National Assembly, issues general guidance on the factors and issues to be considered when the powers under subsection (2) are exercised. We do not want councils to go through a lot of work only to discover that the Secretary of State will not consider their proposals. The amendment would mean that they were given guidance on what proposals might be considered and agreed to by the Secretary of State. We should provide guidance for the sake of local taxpayers, who will be paying for the officers who do the work. If councils had to go

through the consultation and work involved in putting an application together, only to come up against a Minister who said that he would never consider their proposal, that would clearly be a waste of time and money. The Minister might say that he would produce guidance anyway, but the amendment would give him the opportunity to do exactly that.

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

Clause 47 provides that additional licensing can come into force only if the designation is confirmed by the appropriate national authority or falls within a general approval. I will return to that in due course. That means that before designating an area for additional licensing, the local authority must make a case for doing so and justify its proposal effectively. If the confirming authority is satisfied that the local authority has adequately consulted on its proposed designation and considered any representations, as required under clause 45, there is no reason why any proposal should not be confirmed. The provision will ensure that local authorities are clear about the steps that they need to follow to set up a scheme, which is important to ensure that the views of local people who will be affected by the scheme are properly considered and that schemes will not be continually subjected to legal challenges by landlords or tenants.

Clause 45(7) also provides that the appropriate national authority may give general approval to any description of designation. When a general approval is given, any such designation comes into force no earlier than three months after it is made. I want to respond in more detail to the hon. Member for Ludlow, but let me remind him and the Committee that those new licensing regimes and, in particular, additional licensing are a new area for us, and we are at the beginning of a process that gives extensive new powers to local authorities. To that extent it seems right that, at least at the beginning of the process, applications for such designations should be subject to scrutiny by the national authority. It is important that the national authority is convinced that the applications are justified. I suggest that such recourse, at least at the beginning of the process, will help to ensure greater consistency in the licensing regimes that are enforced at local level. Throughout our debates, concern has been expressed about problems of inconsistency and mixed messages to landlords within and between specific areas. The measure is a further means of offering reassurance about consistency.

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

That is an important point and the Minister is wise to make it, because of exactly the situation described by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, of a landlord or a group of properties that may cross over different local authority areas. It would be highly inappropriate to run different schemes in neighbouring areas where a landlord might have a spread of properties. The consistency for which the hon. Member for Ludlow calls in this part needs, as he indicated, to permeate the whole Bill, exactly because of that kind of consideration.

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

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If such consistency and clarity about the schemes were applied, that would pave the way to general

approval models being issued for certain kinds of scheme. The provision is potentially very important: it could be used to give general approval for local authorities to extend licensing to certain categories of HMOs. For example—I am sure that this will appeal at least to the hon. Member for Ludlow—it could be applied to properties of three storeys or five people, rather than those of three storeys and five people. It could be used to give general approval for certain local authorities to have additional flexibility to extend HMO licensing without having to apply for a specific consent. We must be sure that the schemes are applied appropriately and that we learn from that process before we consider the issuing of general approvals.

Amendment No. 256 would require the appropriate national authority to issue guidance on the factors and issues to which it would have regard when considering whether to confirm a designation. I am happy to confirm to the hon. Member for Ludlow that the Government fully intend to issue non-statutory guidance on the matter. He will accept, I hope, that that will offer local authorities the clarity that he seeks. However, it may be useful to remind members of the Committee of what we would broadly expect from local authorities before a confirmation could be made.

The Committee will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe pressed me on this point during last Thursday afternoon's sitting, and that I explained briefly how we envisage it working. As I said, we want local authorities to consider carefully their reasons for extending HMO licensing, and the nature and extent of their problem. They will need to consider how their proposals mesh with other policies, such as their general housing strategy or regeneration schemes, and whether alternative measures could deal with the problems that they have identified. Their own capacity to make licensing work is allied to that.

Many local authorities will face a considerable task in dealing with the HMOs that have to be licensed under the mandatory regime. A key consideration would therefore be the extent to which they fulfilled their obligations regarding the mandatory regime, both in the number of properties licensed and the process of ensuring that such properties are free from serious hazards under part 1. Above all, they will need to bring together all such considerations in making their case when they consult. Of course, they must listen to the feedback that they obtain from the people consulted and modify their proposals if necessary.

Those are the considerations that local authorities will be required to meet, and if the national authority is satisfied that those conditions have been met, approval can be given. As I was happy to confirm to my hon. Friend, we are not trying to say that the centre knows better or knows what is needed to address local problems. We are trying to ensure that licensing is used where it is really needed. I hope that I have explained the Government's position clearly and I implore the hon. Member for Ludlow to withdraw his amendment.

Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I have listened to the Minister and am not entirely convinced that he needs those powers. I do not think that clause 47 is necessary. I tabled an amendment to that effect which has not been selected,

so I will not press the next group of amendments, which relate to the removal of clause 47. I am not convinced by the Minister on this matter, but we are clearly not going to agree. I would prefer to leave it up to local authorities to make decisions on local solutions, rather than taking the Government's one-size-fits-all approach. However, I can do the maths: I am not going to win this one and, although I am unconvinced, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.