Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 271, in

clause 55, page 35, line 34, at end insert—

'(1A) On application for a licence, ''P'' will be required to make a full disclosure of any recorded convictions on the sex offenders' register to the licensing authority.

(1B) Before the local authority awards a licence it will be required to validate both the identity of ''P'' and information supplied by ''P'' with the national sex offenders register.

(1C) Every HMO manager within an authority's area of jurisdiction will be required to report to that licensing authority any sexual offence conviction gained since the award of an HMO manager's registration.

(1D) Every year, local authorities will be required to check the names of all HMO managers within the area of their jurisdiction against the sex offenders' register.'.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 272, in

clause 55, page 35, leave out lines 43 and 44.

Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)

We are testing the requirements in clause 55 to which the housing authority must pay regard. They include dishonesty, violence, drugs, and discrimination on the grounds of sex, colour, race and ethnic or national origins. The amendment states:

''(1A) On application for a licence, ''P'' will be required to make a full disclosure of any recorded convictions on the sex offenders' register to the licensing authority.''

Under the Bill, a drug offence might be a youthful indiscretion at university in the time of peace and love and the Vietnam war, which the Minister for Housing and Planning probably remembers very well. However, the Bill does not set out anything to do with sex offences, although most of them could be included under the general heading of violence. We all know that people who have responsibility for HMOs may have vulnerable people within their property. The Minister should be required to explain why such offences were not included in the list of subjects in the Bill.

Amendment No. 272 is a probing amendment about the grounds on which an authority has to pay regard to some of the things that I mentioned earlier. Will they have to be tested in court, or will an authority that refuses a licence be on firm ground?

Would someone who wanted to have a licence be able to go to court to overturn an authority's decision? How strong can a local authority be in refusing a licence?

Clause 55(2)(d) refers to a code of practice. I have not yet seen that code of practice. It is possible that the Minister will say that it has been produced and flash a document in front of the Committee; otherwise, we are concerned about the fact that we are debating the grounds on which a local authority can refuse a licence when we do not know the details of the code.

Amendment No. 271 flags up the fact that we consider sex offences to be an important thing for a local authority to take into account when they are thinking of giving somebody an HMO licence. We want the Minister to set out the situation in that regard, and to describe how the Government feel about this important issue.

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

I rise in support of Conservative amendment No. 271. It is right that one of the considerations made about a person managing an HMO is whether they are on the sex offenders register. They would not be automatically barred, but that fact should be taken into account.

I have a related question about someone having a past offence for smoking cannabis, which, under these regulations, would have to be brought forward. People might have been caught doing that 20 or 30 years ago when it was a class B drug. It is now a class C drug. [Hon. Members: ''Not until Thursday.''] Is there any guidance as to how local authorities should take account of there being something that is a lesser offence than it once was?

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

I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Poole. Landlords do not exactly have a duty of care, but they do have an important responsibility when dealing with HMOs, which are often occupied by vulnerable people. We have spoken a lot about help and protection for such people, and this amendment is an important precaution.

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

I should add that a landlord is often one of the few people with keys to a person's property and therefore often has access either to vulnerable adults or to young children when parents are away.

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

That is precisely the sort of thing that I had in mind. As I said, landlords have particular responsibilities and duties in relation to the way in which they interact with their tenants. Not all such duties are prescribed by law, and nor should they be. Some are about social interaction, about which one cannot be prescriptive. However, for the sort of reasons mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, landlords are often in a powerful position over people who may not be sufficiently confident, mature or strong to represent their own interests properly. The more protection that we can give in the form that my hon. Friend the Member for Poole suggests, the better.

Our amendment is a helpful addition to the Bill, and the Minister will probably accept it now. If he does not, the Government should consider the matter again. If managers were to be tested for previous

convictions for drug offences or for offences of discrimination on the grounds of sex, colour or race, but not simultaneously for sex offences—possibly against children—or other serious matters, that would be poorly received. I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend has said, and I hope that the Minister will take it seriously. If he cannot grasp it with both hands immediately, I hope that he will think about it again.

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

I should say at once that I have no intention of being sucked into the drugs issue, at the level of reminiscence or debate, other than to say that I have the honour to represent 40 per cent. of Brixton in Parliament, and that I do not take the same line on issues of reclassification as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), whose position is well known. In other words, I am content with the Government's decision.

I want to come on to the important issues raised, but it would be helpful if I set out as briefly and as rapidly as possible the purposes of the clause, which brings us on to the issue of the fitness and propriety of the landlord. That will become an important issue as we go on to discuss part 3, which deals with selective licensing.

Clause 55 sets out the evidence that a local authority has to consider when addressing the question whether a person or a relevant associate is fit and proper to be a licence holder or a manager. There are four categories of such evidence. First, one must ask whether the person has committed an offence involving fraud, dishonesty, violence or drugs; secondly, whether they have practised unlawful discrimination in business on grounds of sex, colour, race, ethnic or national origins or disability; thirdly, whether they have contravened housing law; and fourthly, whether they have breached any applicable code of practice approved under clause 171. I pause on the issue of the code of practice, which was raised by the hon. Member for Poole. I have a speech on the subject at a later stage, but I will circulate a note to the Committee that provides as much detail as is reasonable about the code of practice. I could undertake to circulate the code to the Committee but, frankly, I have no idea how substantial a document it is.

Clause 55(3) means that when deciding whether the licence holder or manager is fit and proper, the local authority can consider relevant evidence about offences committed by a relevant associate. Section 24(2) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 sets a precedent for that. A landlord may seek to have a spouse or some other close associate act as a manager on his behalf, yet the nature and closeness of that association could prove to be a good reason for not regarding that other person as fit and proper.

Subsections (5) to (7) set out the matters to be addressed when considering whether the management arrangements—the competence of the manager, management structure and funding—for an HMO are satisfactory.

Amendment No. 271 would specifically require a sex offender to disclose recorded convictions on an application for a licence to act as an HMO manager and on subsequent applications. It would require a local authority to check on an application for licensing and to check annually whether any proposed or existing HMO managers were sex offenders. Subsection (2) lists a number of cases in which a person might not be considered fit and proper to manage an HMO. A sex offender could easily fall within those categories, but they do not have to be expressly covered by the categories listed in subsection (2) to be deemed unfit to be an HMO manager. Subsection (1) makes it clear that the list is not intended to be exhaustive, hence the words ''among other things''.

I say to the hon. Member for Poole and to other hon. Members who have intervened that I accept that a local authority must be aware as best it can of the actions of licensed managers that might subsequently make them unfit for licensing. I am not sure that, in addition to the other new obligations in the Bill, I want to place upon a housing authority the formal burden of an extra annual check on sex offenders.

I will consider the matter—I understand the force of the argument—but if we were to add the provision, we would do so technically and in a different way the one proposed in the amendment. I undertake to the Committee to give further consideration to add sex offences to the list in subsection (2).

If the purpose of amendment No. 272 is to ask whether a local authority's decision on a licence can be tested in court, the answer is yes. I hope that I have provided a reasonable response to the Committee and I invite the hon. Member for Poole to withdraw the amendment.

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

The Minister has made a sensitive and intelligent response to the arguments and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will be pleased that he has undertaken to consider the matter afresh. I am not rigid about the wording proposed in the amendment—to be so would be pedantic. He clearly understands the power and responsibility that landlords will have over vulnerable tenants.

Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.