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

I beg to move amendment No. 232, in

clause 49, page 32, line 4, at end insert

'but must be within six months.'.

This is a teaser amendment. I noticed a slight oddity, which I am sure the Minister did not intend when the Bill was drafted. The designations last for five years, but if one is to be revoked, it

''ceases to have effect at the time that is specified''

by the authority ''for this purpose.'' An authority could specify that the time was 25 years hence, although it is unlikely that that would happen. Although there will be a period of five years after which the measure can be revoked, the authority could set an unspecified time for it to be revoked, saying, ''Yes, we have had five years and the revocation comes into effect in 100 years.'' I realise that I am being slightly flippant, but it could be left open for a considerable length of time. I am sure that that is not what the Minister meant. The amendment seeks to clarify matters by saying that if local authorities are going to revoke licenses, the designation ceases to have effect at the time specified by the authority for this purpose and the period is not more than six months.

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

The hon. Gentleman is underselling his amendment. There is a serious point, which penetrates deeper than the flippant case that he is making about 100 years or 25 years. The real point is that there may be rapidly changing circumstances in a designated area. New building or substantial social change may be taking place fairly rapidly. The designation period, and the period in which the designation is revoked, needs to reflect quickly a change in circumstances that will have a real impact on the nature and quality of life in the area. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but he needs to make it more along those lines, rather than putting the fanciful case he did. I suspect that he had too good a lunch.

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

I am afraid I have not had lunch. I was going to say that I was enjoying the debate in the Chamber, but I do not think that it has reached the level of debate yet. The hon. Gentleman has a good point, but I do not think he has to worry if the period is less than five years because clause 49(2) implies that it is

''no later than five years''.

The period could be shorter. My concern is that the legislation is open-ended. That is not something that should trouble the Committee for a long time, but I am sure that the Minister does not mean it to be open-ended. I tabled the amendment in the spirit of being helpful and constructive, as I always am.

Ms Yvette Cooper (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

Clause 49 requires that a designation for additional HMO licensing should last no longer than five years. [Interruption.]

Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

My sincere apologies to everyone, Mr. Pike. I put a new battery into my pager, and I obviously forgot to put it on ''silent'' mode.

Ms Yvette Cooper (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

A local authority must, from time to time, review a designation and following any such review, a local authority may revoke designations. On revocation of a designation, the local authority must publish notice of the revocation as is prescribed by regulations under clause 49(6). A counterpart to clause 49 for selective licensing is clause 71. The reason for including that provision is that people need to understand their legal obligations. Without such notice, people will not be aware of their responsibilities. The provision ensures that the revoking of a designation scheme is made known throughout an area as effectively as possible.

The amendment proposes that where a local authority revokes a designation, it ceases to have effect within six months. Where authorities choose to revoke designations, it is likely that they will generally do so promptly. However, there may be instances where a longer period may be necessary. A local authority wanting to give early warning of its intention to revoke may want time to prepare for the transition to a non-licensing environment by seeking, for example, to promote alternative approaches, such as voluntary accreditation or something similar, prior to revocation.

In practice, the amendment would have little effect because the decision to revoke a designation is within the local authority's discretion, so if it wanted to delay the coming into force of a revocation by more than six months, it would simply delay the decision until a point six months before it wanted the measure to come into effect.

To clarify the other point raised by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green)—he misunderstood the way that the clause works—clause 49(1) refers to a designation being previously revoked under clause 49(4). The designation will run out in five years' time, or earlier, if revoked. It can be revoked at an earlier period, so it is a matter for local councils to decide whether to revoke it; they can review it at an earlier stage. At that point, the provisions

concerning the revocation set out in the remainder of the clause would apply. The sort of circumstances described by the hon. Gentleman would not apply because the clause sets out that the designation would run out in five years of earlier. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

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

The Minister has clarified that point effectively, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.