Clause 56 - Licence conditions
Housing Bill
4:15 pm
Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 260, in
clause 56, page 36, line 38, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
'(b) conditions requiring reasonable steps to be taken to address any nuisance or annoyance caused to others by persons occupying or visiting the house;'.
I am very grateful to Shelter for suggesting the amendment, which would amend subsection (2)(b). The amendment would require a landlord to include a
written statement of terms within a tenancy agreement under paragraph 1(5) to schedule 4 relating to the conduct of the occupier and any visitors to the property. The inclusion of such terms in tenancy agreements would align private landlord practice for HMOs with standard practice of most social landlords.
The amendment would also include a provision for a private landlord to detail in writing what action they will take to address any nuisance, annoyance or harassment caused to others or the unlawful use of the house by persons occupying or visiting the house. Again, that would go some way towards aligning the practice of private landlords with that of social landlords who, under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, must produce policies and procedures to deal with antisocial behaviour.
The amendment relates to the reference to private landlords controlling the behaviour of their tenants in clause 56(2)(b). That term is too broad to be effective and goes beyond the level of responsibility that local authorities have to tackle the behaviour of their social housing tenants. The role of a responsible landlord is to manage the property and the tenancy. However, we believe that a landlord's interest in the behaviour of tenants or their visitors could easily constitute harassment unless it relates directly to the enforcement of a contractual obligation.
That is the reason for proposing the amendment: to bring the provision broadly in line with other provisions in the social housing sector. It would ensure that the word ''controlling'', which seems far too strong and puts too onerous a duty on landlords, is removed and replaced with something more acceptable.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)
I apologise for being late, Mr. Pike. I was invited to return from the Council of Europe in Strasbourg to take part in an event in the House.
Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)
Order. We all know that you were ordered back to take part in this Committee, Sir Sydney.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)
I also apologise to the hon. Member for Ludlow. I was hoping to intervene on him to save the Committee a little time.
Six sets of conditions are set out in clause 56(2) and although the hon. Gentleman explained where he is coming from—via a good Shelter briefing, I might add—I am slightly perplexed about why he wants to introduce the word ''reasonable''. We have had this debate before, so I need not rehearse the arguments, but the other five conditions are specific and I cannot see why he now wants to introduce the word ''reasonable'' because that can mean different things to different people. It would be helpful to the Committee if the hon. Gentleman explained his rationale.
Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
Far be it from me to be in the position in which Ministers often find themselves of having to defend the word ''reasonable''—an argument that seems to plague Ministers in every Committee of which I have been a member. We are
discussing ways of dealing with antisocial behaviour. That is the purpose of the clause. There is a limit to what a landlord could do to control the antisocial behaviour of tenants, so the word ''reasonable'' refers to what reasonable steps can be taken. That is slightly different from prescribing to a landlord exactly what they will do to control their antisocial tenants. That is difficult to detail precisely and a test of reasonableness is needed, which is what I believe Ministers have to trot out every time the question is asked.
Mr Richard Younger-Ross (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Teignbridge, Liberal Democrat)
Is it not the case that the word ''reasonable'' is needed because something that is reasonable at one time of the day might be unreasonable at another? Account must be taken of the exact level of noise and when the nuisance occurs. If we simply prescribed that steps must be taken, we would end up with a rigid regime that might stop people putting up a set of shelves or something like that.
Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
My hon. Friend is on to a good point. However, I turn to the Minister's usual defence, which is that the term ''reasonable'' is well established in law and would be well understood by the judicial system, should the matter end up in court.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)
I am not trying to be pedantic. I could understand the hon. Gentleman using the word ''reasonable'' if it also applied to the other five of the six sets of conditions in the clause. I was satisfied—or reasonably so—by the Minister's explanation of ''reasonable'' in another debate. The only distinction that I can see between the amendment and subsection (2)(b) is the word ''reasonable''. Apart from that the provision is the same in its scope and its intention. That is the simple point that I am making. If the hon. Gentleman does not want to pursue it, fair enough.
Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
I shall try to be brief when dealing with the far more substantive point. The Government version of the paragraph talks about the landlord
''controlling the behaviour of persons occupying or visiting the house'',
whereas the amendment refers to
''reasonable steps being taken to address any nuisance or annoyance caused''.
There is a substantial difference. The amendment brings the private sector into line with the social sector by using the same terminology as that used in the regulations relating to social sector and council housing. The term ''controlling the behaviour'' puts an extra duty on the private sector that goes beyond that on the social sector.
Mr. Hayes rose—
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
Thank you, Mr. Pike.
The hon. Member for Ludlow should wrap this up as quickly as possible, because he is in all sorts of difficulties. Local authorities, housing associations and others have a responsibility to their tenants. If we are
to deal with antisocial behaviour properly, all landlords should take that responsibility seriously. Good landlords already do. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is exercising the Liberal conscience, but if he is, he should draw his remarks to a close promptly, or we shall make no progress at all.
Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
If I did not take so many interventions, I would probably get to the end faster. I sat down once, but I was invited to respond by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman).
To come back to the point, the amendment brings the provision into line with those for the social sector and the council house sector. Therefore, far from being a woolly Liberal, I am trying to ensure that the private sector only has to operate at the same level as the social sector, thus bringing the Bill into line with other legislation.
Ms Yvette Cooper (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Pontefract and Castleford, Labour)
The clause provides for the HMO licence conditions that a local authority may include on a licence and those that they must apply. Specific conditions that the local authority may use are set out in subsection (2) and include provisions on the behaviour of the occupants. Subsection (3) refers to schedule 4, which sets out the mandatory conditions for licences issued under part 2 for HMOs and part 3 for selective licensing.
In identifying the mandatory conditions for part 2 and part 3 licences, we have considered what is necessary to ensure tenants' safety. Therefore, the conditions set out in the schedule include having a gas safety certificate, keeping electrical appliances and furniture in a safe condition, keeping smoke alarms in proper working order and so on. In addition, the landlord will be required to supply the occupier of the house with a written statement of the terms on which they occupy it. Most good landlords have written agreements, because they see them as a key part of managing the relationship with their tenants. The purpose of licensing is to encourage landlords to take greater responsibility for the relationship with their tenants. That includes tackling tenants' anti-social behaviour when it has an impact on the surrounding community.
Amendment No. 260 would limit the scope of the behaviour that a local authority might seek to control through imposing a condition on a licence under clause 56(2)(b). The amendment would limit the condition to one that would address nuisance or annoyance caused by persons occupying or visiting a house, and it would require specifically that the steps that the condition would require to be taken were reasonable. I have some sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. Clearly, we want to ensure both that the requirements on landlords are reasonable and that we are dealing with antisocial behaviour rather than any aspect of people's behaviour.
Let me set out the safeguards that are already in place in the Bill, first on the issue of reasonableness. Local authorities and public bodies have duties to
behave reasonably. It is set out in case law. It would be unreasonable to impose unreasonable conditions on landlords. Therefore, there is already a reasonableness test that must be passed. Clause 56(2) begins:
''Those conditions may, in particular, include (so far as appropriate in the circumstances)'',
therefore the test of reasonableness is also inherent in the wording of the clause.
Under subsection (6), a condition such as that set out under subsection (2)(b) could not go beyond what a landlord would be required to do in respect of his contractual relationship with a tenant. That provides a further safeguard. Moreover, the landlord would be able to refer a condition to the independent housing tribunal if he was concerned about it. A series of safeguards would ensure that the conditions are reasonable because, clearly, a landlord cannot be expected to take responsibility for each aspect of a tenant's behaviour. Tenants must take responsibility for their own behaviour. Nevertheless, there are things that private landlords can do, as can social housing landlords and housing associations, to prevent antisocial behaviour from occurring.
The second concern that is implicit in the amendment is that the conditions should require steps being taken to address the nuisance and annoyance caused, rather than with a view to controlling people's behaviour. I am happy to consider the wording of the provision to see how it relates to the wording used in respect of social landlords or local authorities. We do not intend the provision to apply to every sort of behaviour against which a local authority is prejudiced. It must be reasonable and it must deal specifically with antisocial behaviour. Again, we must allow local authorities to take responsibility for their decisions and have flexibility to address the sorts of antisocial behaviour problems that they have in their area. Conditions will have to be proportionate for good reason: like others, local authorities are bound by the safeguards of the Human Rights Act 1998. Proportionality is a further safeguard in that respect.
The amendment would cause an additional problem: it would be too restrictive by only allowing conditions to be imposed that would demand action to address nuisance and annoyance when such behaviour had occurred. It may be appropriate for local authorities to set standards of behaviour that they believe landlords should require their tenants to meet or, for example, to expect landlords to make clear to tenants in advance that antisocial behaviour will risk the tenancy. In practice, there may be steps that local authorities can take to encourage landlords to take action to prevent antisocial behaviour from happening in the first place rather than simply patching up such behaviour after it has occurred.
Mr Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)
I have a particular interest in subsection 2(b) because it is of much concern to many of my constituents. Will the Minister elaborate briefly on what powers are envisaged by the words ''controlling the behaviour''? In particular, what ultimate sanction will be left to the landlord? My experience is that landlords of all types of tenures can
be very slow to do something about such problems, which causes severe difficulties in our constituencies.
Ms Yvette Cooper (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Pontefract and Castleford, Labour)
There are legal powers for landlords, whether private landlords, local authorities or housing associations, to enforce tenancy agreements. Clearly, it will be for landlords to decide how they should enforce tenancy agreements and what action they should take, but there are powers in place.
I agree that landlords of every type should take action swiftly and should be responsible about addressing antisocial behaviour. We know of many examples from across the country of local authorities and housing associations that take antisocial behaviour seriously and take all kinds of responsible action both to prevent it and to address it once it occurs. The intention behind the clause is to extend that capacity and promote such responsible behaviour among private landlords as well. Many already take such action, but, with HMOs and selective licensing, which we shall discuss in the next part of the Bill, it is right to promote such behaviour.
The amendment would not help to prevent antisocial behaviour. There are safeguards to ensure both that landlords are reasonable and that demands on tenants are proportionate. Also, I have undertaken to consider further the wording across different sectors. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Ludlow to withdraw the amendment.
Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
I am particularly reassured by the Minister's last comment that she is going to consider the provisions to ensure that they do not impose different conditions on different sectors.
Ms Yvette Cooper (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Pontefract and Castleford, Labour)
To clarify, I am happy to look at the different wording that applies across the different sectors, but I certainly cannot undertake to apply identical wording to different sectors, because there may be reasons not to do so.
Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
I thank the Minister for that clarification, which is somewhat reassuring. I am happy to leave the matter for the time being, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.