Mr Edward Davey (Shadow Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 289, in

clause 67, page 44, line 23, at end insert

', or

(c) areas in their district,'.

This is a probing amendment to check that the Government have got their legislation right. Subsection (1) states:

''A local housing authority may designate either—

(a) the area of their district, or

(b) an area in their district,

as subject to selective licensing''.

I wanted to check that that does not prevent a local housing authority from designating more than one area in its district, where the areas do not make up the total amount of its district. The Government might feel that the subsection will work by allowing a local housing authority to designate, for example, two different wards. Amendment No. 289 is designed simply to help the Government pursue their policy even more effectively, if they have not got the measure right.

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

The clause sets out the designation of selective licensing areas—the types of areas that can be licensed and what the basic requirements for making a designation are. It provides that a local housing authority can designate an area of its district as subject to selective licensing if either one or other of

two sets of general conditions specified in the Bill are fulfilled: Subsection (3) provides:

''that the area is, or is likely to become, an area of low housing demand''.

and that

''combined with other measures taken . . . by the local authority''

the designation will help to improve

''the social or economic conditions in the area.''

Subsection (6) applies to areas that have significant antisocial behaviour problems. That subsection was added because we heard from many people that problems that are often concentrated in low-demand areas are not exclusive to those areas. Significant problems of persistent antisocial behaviour that are rooted in poor management by private landlords can arise in other areas as well.

Subsection (7) allows the appropriate national authority to add to those two sets of general conditions. Subsection (9) requires a local housing authority to consult locally and satisfactorily on its scheme for selective licensing before it makes a designation under the clause.

Amendment No. 289 would amend subsection (1), which provides that a designation under part 3 can relate to a part of a local authority's area or to all of it. The current drafting of the Bill does not prevent selective licensing from operating in different parts of a local authority area. Some local authorities will want to license more than one part of their area and it would be crazy if they could only license either one small corner, or the whole of. their area. That is obviously not the intention of the Bill, and I am assured by the lawyers that that is not its effect. The Bill provides that all of a local authority area can be licensed, but we do not expect such a situation to arise given that the scope of the regime is focused on low demand and antisocial behaviour. Licensing should be used only where it is necessary, so the general expectation is that it will not apply to all of a local authority area.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

I have tried to follow the debate with some care. As as I understand it, the central question is: can a local authority have only one go at designating an area? If it can, presumably it applies the regulations on each occasion. Is that the Minister's understanding of the matter?

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

No, clearly a local authority does not have only one go; separate areas may need to be licensed. If there are distinct areas, however, various conditions and circumstances may apply. They may need to be justified in different ways.

It is possible for general approvals to be given under clause 69(6), so it may be appropriate for the national authority to confirm a series of areas or several areas specified by the local authority that meet particular conditions, rather than the local authority having to make identical repeat applications for them all. The power of general approval could be used, but if a local authority proposes to designate different parts of an area for different reasons, it is appropriate that each should be justified separately and on their

own terms. Appropriate consultation processes should be gone through in each of those areas, and they should be individually justified.

The Bill allows us to treat separate parts of local authority areas separately when appropriate, but gives the power in clause 69 for general approval when appropriate. As I said earlier, we might want to be cautious on the early application of that power, and it may take some time to get in place. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Edward Davey (Shadow Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

The Under-Secretary has totally satisfied me. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

I beg to move amendment No. 308, in

clause 67, page 45, line 3, at end insert—

'(d) the number of occupiers that are not British passport holders'.

The amendment is designed to add to the criteria that a local authority must take into account when deciding whether an area is, or is likely to become, an area of low housing demand. I had two situations in mind when tabling the amendment. The first—it will be familiar to members of the Committee, as it affects various parts of the country—is of landlords who ''specialise'' in housing vulnerable people who may be temporary visitors to the United Kingdom. I think, for example, of people seeking asylum and others who are not UK passport holders and who may not necessarily be in a position to represent their own interests as effectively as one would wish, because they are not familiar with their entitlements. They are people with temporary permission to be here for various reasons—work is a good example.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman say how he would establish the numbers who would fulfil that criterion? Would he rely on the tried and tested methods of visual identification, or would he seek to establish some form of registration—something familiar from Germany before the last war—whereby people are asked to register whether they have a British passport before moving in to a local authority area.

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

The hon. Lady makes an important point. That difficulty is faced by various local authorities—including my own—that have to deal with large numbers of people who are not UK passport holders being brought in to their area for the purposes of temporary or seasonal work. Many are temporary workers with a right to be here, but who are often severely exploited by gangmasters—there is legislation before the House to license gangmasters for precisely those reasons. Such people are also exploited, sometimes unknowingly, by employers, and by landlords. Sometimes, there is an overlap between those groups. People buy properties, turn them into HMOs and ''specialise'' in dealing with vulnerable people, because they know such people are often unaware of their proper entitlements, and do not know what they can reasonably expect from a property or what sort of rent they can properly be expected to pay.

There is a real problem. I will be attending a meeting on the matter at the weekend because of concerns felt by my local authority and others.

Several hon. Members rose—

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

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) first.

Mr Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I recognise my hon. Friend's point. Is he aware of the incident in Norfolk of which I was recently made aware, where the local fire brigade was brought to a house on fire and it was found that 26 Chinese people were living in a small terraced house and garage, with mattresses on the floor in the garage and throughout the house? There was a severe fire risk. I think my hon. Friend will agree that that illustrates his point.

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

Yes, I do recognise that situation. There was a case in my constituency in which a number of people, including children, were being housed in glasshouses. Luckily, working with the local authority—South Kesteven—we were able to have the matter dealt with. I went to the property following complaints from neighbours, and I found that the people with whom we were dealing were not the slightest bit interested in the welfare of the people they were housing. It was exploitation of the most savage kind. In the end it was dealt with, but many cases are not because they are not known about.

The local authority in South Holland is struggling to find out where such things are happening. For the reasons made clear by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), the problem is often hidden. If one looks at a large house that one knows is being rented, it is not easy to know precisely how many people are occupying it. There are profound associated problems of overcrowding, but overcrowding is only one of many problems, which also include the conditions in which people are living, the facilities available to them, the rent they are paying and perhaps their employment arrangements.

It would be remiss to ignore the fact that this problem is growing, particularly in parts of the country such as Norfolk, Lincolnshire, Worcestershire and other parts where there is a high demand for seasonal or occasional labour; remiss not to understand its connection with housing and HMOs in particular; and remiss not to take seriously the responsibility that we all have to address the issue.

Dr Brian Iddon (Bolton South East, Labour)

In my view this is a dangerous amendment. I represent a large Asian community and I know that there are many people—hundreds, if not thousands—living in that community who do not hold British passports but have indefinite permission to remain in this country. They prefer to hold on to the passport of their country of origin, but many of them have been here for a very long time and prefer for their own reasons—which I accept—not to apply for British citizenship. How would the hon. Gentleman differentiate between such people and those to whom he refers?

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

That is a fair point. I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman is making a case for a different kind of citizen. Many people not living in the conditions that I described are not British passport holders. I think he will understand that there is a major loophole in the current regulatory arrangements in respect of people who are being outrageously treated.

The problem is growing. It is partly an employment problem, which is not something that we need to consider here, but it is increasingly becoming a housing problem. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire has mentioned one case and I the number of examples in my constituency is growing week by week. Although it is not easy to identify where overcrowded houses are, a couple of weeks ago in my constituency, the local authority had managed identify one, where it found people housed in the most appalling conditions. Perhaps the amendment is not the best way to deal with the problem, but it is important that we raise it. Given that the problem is growing, it would have been irresponsible not to raise it.

The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) is right. The difficulties are twofold: one is differentiating the various groups of non-passport holders; another is identifying the conditions that I have described. That was the point made by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. Perhaps the local authorities do not have sufficient powers or resources to identify such problems, but it would be irresponsible to allow them to continue. It was important that I tabled the amendment, although I acknowledge the points made by the hon. Lady and hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that many people living in reasonable circumstances choose, for various reasons, not to become passport holders. Many landlords and tenants in happy, appropriate arrangements will fall into that category. However, some irresponsible landlords are deliberately targeting vulnerable groups that are least able to defend their interests. Those people are often non-English-speakers who have a slim understanding of what is a fair wage or a fair rent and are unaware of the law that exists to protect them in various ways. There are often very young people involved. This is an emerging unspoken horror.

We have had a ten-minute Bill about gangmasters and now there is a private Member's Bill on the subject. They have begun to tease out some of the issues that I have mentioned today.

Vera Baird rose—

Mr. Davey rose—

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

I give way to the hon. Gentleman first.

Mr Edward Davey (Shadow Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I am worried and may have report the hon. Gentleman to Mr. Paul Dacre, because he seems to want to give huge extra rights to the categories of people about whom he is worried. There would be a huge cost to the taxpayer from setting up a system to try to work out who are British passport holders. Will he explain to the Committee why he wants to give

preferential rights to this group, and why he thinks that holding a British passport is relevant?

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

It is not a question of giving extra rights to people. It is not unreasonable to ensure that in a civilised, responsible country we do not have people brought in under arrangements made by landlords and gangmasters working together. They go to the country of origin where they use well established networks to bring some of the most vulnerable people to this country, where they make housing arrangements that they know are inappropriate and inadequate. This is not about extra rights—it is about ensuring that those people are not being treated appallingly badly. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that it is appropriate for people to continue to live in glasshouses. That is the implication of what he said.

It is not a matter of giving people rights—the Liberal Democrat party, not the Conservative party, is obsessed with rights—it is about ensuring that the housing provided for people is appropriate and civilised, and that they are not being exploited.

Mr. Davey rose—

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

The hon. Gentleman should tread carefully before thinking that we should not do any of those things.

Mr Edward Davey (Shadow Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman has not grasped the point that any rights that are needed by people who are being exploited should apply to everybody, irrespective of where they come from or what passport they hold, because they are human beings.

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

I acknowledge that there are different circumstances in relation to passport holders, but it is important to highlight the issue in that context, because if we do not draw attention to it in a Bill that is about ensuring that HMOs are up to a reasonable standard and licensing them appropriately, where will we deal with it? If we know that there is a major problem with HMOs in this respect—a problem that tends to be focused in areas where there is relationship with employment patterns—and we are discussing legislation on HMOs, it would be bizarre not raise to it and say that the Government need to be cognisant of it and examine ways to deal with it.

The Government have acted and I am grateful to them. Just the other day, I received a letter saying that in my own south Lincolnshire area there will be a policy of targeting some of the worst activities that are, sadly, quite prevalent there, such as the exploitation of labour in the way that I have described. So the problem is recognised, but not to link it to the housing responsibilities of local authorities would be an error. That is why I raise the issue. I do not want to go on about it as I think that I have made my point.

Ms Vera Baird (Redcar, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman points to an abysmal aspect of trafficking and to landlordism victimising vulnerable groups. Why then is he proposing to blame and stigmatise the vulnerable groups that he asserts that he is trying to protect by trying to get us to enshrine in statute that the presence of many foreigners is capable of bringing an area

down? Does he understand the implications of what he is proposing?

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

The hon. and learned Lady makes a fair point, but it is not a question of stigmatising people; it is one of identifying them. If there are people living in the conditions that I have described, we need to know where and how such things are happening. She is right about the consequence of the amendment in its current form. As I have said repeatedly in relation to other amendments, I am not being unreasonably insistent about the way in which I have proposed the amendment, or the detail of it. I tabled it to ensure the issue is aired and that the Government understand the concerns.

Ms Buck rose—

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

I will finish dealing with point made by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) first. I accept what she is saying: there would be an unforeseen danger if I pressed the amendment to a Division and it was accepted. However, it is important that the Government go away and work with the agencies that are taking this matter seriously: the immigration service are aware of it and are acting on it; the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working on it; various Departments and agencies have identified the problem and appreciate its profound nature.

From a housing perspective it would be healthy to understand that there is victimisation of a group of people who are ill equipped to protect their own interests. I make no apology for raising the issue, and I have not pressed the amendment to a Division. It may be that the hon. and learned Lady is right that the amendment in its current form would be unhelpful in a number of ways. However, I think that she would be the first to acknowledge that my point about that kind of victimisation needs to be made and cannot be made too often. It is rarely made in respect of housing. I cannot remember it being raised in the House in respect of HMOs. It has been raised in terms of employment and in relation to some of the immigration issues associated with it, but the link with HMOs must established fully and firmly.

Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton North, Labour)

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that it has been raised vociferously in relation to housing by one hon. Member with a Liverpool constituency in connection with the appalling conditions in some of that city's properties for immigrants? I, too, have raised it in terms of housing issues. As for glasshouses, there is plenty of provision to have those declared unfit for human habitation and to shut them down.

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

I do not want to go into the fine detail of a constituency case, but sadly—almost unbelievably—the owner of the glasshouses went to appeal. It was not until an inquiry, to which I gave evidence, was set up hat we were able to pursue the matter. The typical prevarication took place and it went on for a considerable time, during which people continued to live in the property. The hon. Lady, with her expertise in local government, knows how often every avenue is used to exploit such delays, during which the people concerned continue in an

unfortunate situation. She is right—that is how it was dealt with in the end, but we need to ensure that local authorities have proper powers to enable them to identify such unacceptable situations and to deal with them severely. However, I take the point that, because of its wording, the amendment might have the unintended consequences that have been described by other hon. Members.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman states that the amendment might not be perfect for its purpose. Perhaps he has missed the point that his amendment requires the local authority to take the subject of his amendment into account. Clause 67(4) says that

''a local housing authority must take into account''

such matters. Therefore, it would have to take steps to do that. The only way to do it would be to carry out regular passport checks throughout its area, to demonstrate to the Government that it had done it. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the local authority should go from door to door asking people to present their passports? Would French people have cause to worry? I fear that not only has he not fully thought it through, but he has not thought it through at all.

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

The hon. Gentleman clearly has heard the sense of my argument in terms of my desire to try to deal with a serious problem that has a significant housing aspect to it. We have no mechanism to deal with it. My local authority is having difficulties because of the deliberate policy of concealment. The sort of people who are in the business of trafficking individuals, employing them in scandalously unfair and unreasonable conditions and housing them in the way that I have described are not going to come clean about it—they will not advertise in the local paper. Local authorities find it difficult to deal with the problem, not only because of the resource implications but because of the simple matter of investigating and identifying where it is occurring. It is a new problem that they have encountered only relatively recently. The hon. Gentleman is right; the idea of identifying everybody in order to find the culprits is not appropriate, but it is important that we raise the issue. I am concerned that local authorities do not have sufficient resources or power to deal with a growing problem.

It is harder to understand the problem if one does not represent or live in an area where it has arisen in the past few years. Certainly in rural, agricultural areas, where there is a big demand for temporary labour, it is significant. My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds)—

Geraldine Smith rose—

Ms Buck rose—

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

I shall give way once more to the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, because I am so fond of her. Then, because I do not want to show favouritism, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale of whom I am equally fond.

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

I am very grateful indeed to the hon. Gentleman for his kindness. I accept that there is a kernel of truth in his words, but many of us are concerned that it is deeply irresponsible to dress up a legitimate concern about abuse and exploitation in a form of words that implies that ethnicity is a proxy for low demand. In order to put the nail in the coffin of the amendment—although the way in which the hon. Gentleman introduced it makes me unsure whether this is strictly necessary—I remind him that areas such as Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, St. John's Wood, Mayfair and Holland Park probably have the highest number of residents who do not hold British passports in the entire country. There is no relationship between demand and attractiveness, and value of property is not remotely connected to ethnicity or the holding of a British passport.

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

That is a fair point. When I looked for the means of raising such an important matter, I found that there was no easy or convenient way in which to do so in the Bill. I looked under the selective licensing, additional licensing and mandatory licensing provisions for ways in which such an argument could be made. Matters are coming to a head: I am to have meetings this weekend about it. A private Member's Bill has been drafted on the licensing of gangmasters. The hon. Lady reminded me that such an argument has been raised in the House by other hon. Members.

The Bill is highly pertinent to such issues because it deals with the licensing of houses in multiple occupation, in large part for the purposes of dealing with the exploitation of vulnerable people. There could be no more appropriate Bill in which to raise the important issue of the exploitation of people. Members of the Committee will recognise what I have tried to do, yet there is no convenient or easy way of doing it through the Bill. Frankly, it is not specifically designed to do the job that I have described, although in general terms it probably is the right vehicle by which to create a bridge across employment and immigration, as well as housing.

The Employment Service, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the immigration service are working in concert to consider how the exploitation that I have described is being perpetuated. Specific targeted approaches are being employed in parts of the country where it is most prevalent. I have already mentioned my area: until we get the housing and the local government aspects right, we will not bottom out. It is scandalous that some rogue landlords are specialising—I use that word again—in identifying the people whom they know are least able to defend their own interests.

The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North referred to ethnicity. I am not suggesting that such problems are limited to one part of the world. People are being drawn in from all parts of the world. The range of countries from which the people are being trafficked is extraordinary. Well-established networks often send out people to the country of origin to identify vulnerable people and bring them into this country. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire mentioned such cases earlier. I repeat: I have heard stories of people

who are charged massive rents, who receive low wages and who live in extraordinary overcrowded conditions, enduring all the risks associated with such circumstances and all of the horrors that one can imagine.

I shall continue to raise the issue. I accept that the amendment is highly imperfect—an even bigger concession than I have made already. I am pleased that we have had the debate. I hope that the Ministers will take away the proposals that have been made, work with their colleagues in other parts of the Government and consider ways in which to create additional powers to deal with an entirely unacceptable exploitation of vulnerable people.

Richard Younger-Ross (Teignbridge) (LD) rose—

Mr. Davey rose—

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

I am not giving way to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, and I am certainly not going to give way to the hon. Member for Teignbridge. He only comes here occasionally; he is like a rare bird. I am not giving way to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton who had the temerity to say about my defence of people whom I should have thought he would have been interested in standing up for that I was giving them too many rights. My argument is not about giving them too many rights; it is about giving them appropriate protection and acknowledging that we have a duty and responsibility not to allow such practices to continue.

Mr Edward Davey (Shadow Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I shall be brief, because I think that the hon. Gentleman has dug such a large hole for himself that he has probably ended up somewhere in south Holland. He should reflect more carefully before tabling such amendments. Across the parties, we have a real battle across the parties next June against the British National party. I attended a conference in Halifax with Conservative and Labour Members to work out, cross- party, how to stand up to that very real threat. The idea that we could have a local authority run by the BNP holding such a power sends a shiver down our spines. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment without further debate.

Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)

My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings has stirred up much interest and debate with his amendment. We are basically talking about tests for extraordinary areas for selective licensing. Although the amendment's wording is inappropriate, my hon. Friend is trying to suggest that people who are transported to Britain to do very low-paid jobs tend to move to areas where there is surplus housing and low housing demand, where they are often exploited. With the expansion of the European Union, many people from eastern Europe are likely to come to the UK. They might not be familiar with conditions in the UK and their rights. In this debate we are trying to engender some reasonable tests.

More generally, if one wants to consider whether an area has housing difficulties, one often has only to go and look at it. How much detailed information does

the Minister consider that a local authority needs to collect to obtain a designation for a selective licensing area? The factors listed are specific, including

''the value of residential premises . . . turnover of occupiers of residential premises''

and

''the number of residential premises''.

A degree of burden will be placed on the local authority to collect a lot of information, even though it is necessary only to look at an area to work out whether it should be designated. How much detail will be needed and what cost will the local authority have to bear? I acknowledge that costs would be attached to the amendment, but what level of research and background information do the Government expect? A few photographs would probably suffice to support an application by Burnley district council for some of their estates to go into a selective licensing area, while other areas would need to supply more information.

Will the Under-Secretary tell us a little more about how much money the Government expect local authorities to spend and how much research they should conduct before making an application? As the local authorities that apply will be from the most deprived areas, what compensation in the revenue support system will exist to assist such authorities in dealing with major problems in their areas?

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

I will first address the issues around amendment No. 308. We have had an extensive debate, and many hon. Members have made clear the strong case against it. It would be inappropriate to add the proposed provision to the Bill and to try to achieve the intention behind the amendment moved by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings.

Several hon. Members have pointed out the dangers of trying to designate areas on the basis of ethnicity or the number of British passport holders or asylum seekers. Given what the hon. Gentleman is attempting to achieve, it would be inappropriate to try to designate areas on such criteria and use a selective licensing mechanism in that way. It is true that there are areas with concentrations of vulnerable people; too often, they are also areas with the poorest housing, and often, but not always, areas of low demand. However, the most vulnerable can be concentrated in the poorest housing in areas of high demand as well. In trying to address a problem, we should concentrate on what it is. If the problem is overcrowding, we should debate overcrowding; if it is unsafe housing, we should debate that, as we did in when we discussed part 1 of the Bill. If the problem is about poor management by individual private landlords, we should talk about that when we reach clause 88; if it is about HMOs, we should talk about them. If the problem is the exploitation of vulnerable people, we need to identify what kind of exploitation that is. Is it covered by other aspects of the Bill? Is an additional sort of exploitation not covered? Is the problem with the law or with its enforcement? We need information to identify where a problem lies.

If refugees and asylum seekers face particular problems as a result of their legal or employment

status or their being particularly vulnerable, we should recognise and identify that. However, it would be deeply wrong and dangerous—and inappropriate and unworkable as a mechanism—to designate an area on the basis of the number of people facing problems within it. I recognise that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is attempting to address the exploitation of vulnerable people, but I urge him to identify what the nature of the exploitation is and whether there is a gap in the law or in its enforcement in relation to those vulnerable people. I also urge him to recognise and properly identify the nature of the person's vulnerability, rather than simply trying to correlate vulnerability with the number of British passport holders in an area, or with other inappropriate factors. Attempting to do so risks promoting prejudice, discrimination and greater community tensions, which we all try to avoid.

The hon. Member for Poole asked about what local authorities need to take into account. As he says, that will often be extremely obvious in the case of a low-demand area. Identifying the price of a property relative to another area down the road will often be sufficient to show that it is in a low-demand area. We do not want to impose too great a burden and we should not need to, although we will need to keep an eye on the situation. Most local authorities are not raising that as a problem: they are desperate to get the power and think that they can use it effectively to identify the areas that they need to designate.

Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)

It seems to me, therefore, that the tests are more likely to be used in attempts to revoke a designation than in attempts to make one. As the Under-Secretary said, if house prices have collapsed, the problem is perfectly obvious. However, if an area is improving, there might be an argument about the point at which a designation should be revoked. Some factors might then be more relevant.

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

If the question of whether to revoke a licence were controversial, that that might be the case, but ultimately local authorities would need to take that decision. We have standard procedures for dealing with new burdens on local authorities. However, in practice I do not expect a huge burden to be placed on local authorities. The process will be relatively obvious and straightforward for them. If they think that the problem has gone away, well great—the designation can be revoked. I do not envisage the kind of problem that the hon. Gentleman anticipates. On that basis, I join other hon. Members in urging the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to withdraw his amendment.

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

I am minded to withdraw the amendment for reasons that various hon. Members have argued. It would be too broad a brush and would have unacceptable consequences. That point was forcibly made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.

However, the Under-Secretary made an interesting point about whether this is a problem of law, or its interpretation or application, or all three. There may

be insufficient powers to deal with the problem, there may be issues of interpretation, and there may be issues of application and resource. From what the local authorities that I deal with tell me, it may be all three. That is why I am pleased to have raised the point and to have stimulated such excitement in the Committee on what could otherwise have been a dull morning. I have clearly made my case, but take the point that this is probably not the best way to pursue it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I return to the issue of antisocial behaviour, which was raised by various embers of the Committee. I share hon. Members' concerns about tenants in isolated properties, but I accept that we will discuss that issue in our debates on later clauses.

I have some questions for the Minister about subsection (6). Why is it so restrictive? Why does it refer only to private sector landlords and not registered social landlords? The diligence of local councils in taking action against the antisocial behaviour of tenants in their housing stock is variable, particularly where housing associations are concerned. I recently dealt with a case of antisocial behaviour in which housing associations behaved appallingly: letters were not responded to, nor were telephone calls to the solicitor representing the people who suffered from the antisocial behaviour. That is a deep discourtesy to me as the Member of Parliament taking up the issue. Can the Under-Secretary give me some comfort on this issue?

People suffering from antisocial behaviour are not remotely interested in the tenure of the people who are causing them suffering and disturbance. Clause 67 seems to show a reasonably heavy hand to private landlords, as do other parts of the Bill. I welcome that; we should be as tough as possible with private landlords who tolerate antisocial behaviour. But such behaviour is not restricted to that sector. We need seriously to consider this issue in relation to housing associations.

Dr Brian Iddon (Bolton South East, Labour)

When I was the chairman of a housing committee, I got it to take the kind of action that the hon. Gentleman suggests, against people who were behaving antisocially in the council housing sector. That was a mistake, because after they were evicted by the council, they simply moved into a property owned by a private landlord around the corner on the same estate, where they carried on as usual. That was possible because we had sold a considerable number of council houses. It is not necessarily a solution.

Mr Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Clearly that was not a solution in the case that he illustrated, but I seek equally strong measures to apply to all landlords and tenures, whether private, housing association or local authority. Clearly, it is not right that people who behave antisocially just go from one tenure to another. We need uniformity across the housing field, so that appropriate action can be taken wherever those people are.

The hon. Gentleman has raised the broader question of where such people would eventually end up, but now is not the time for that debate, and you would not permit it, Mr. Conway. However, I will say that the behaviour of some housing associations is a serious problem. There is great variation. I have no doubt that some housing associations are extremely good, but others are not. There is one in my constituency—I will not name it now, although I reserve the right to do so—that has behaved appallingly. I still have steam coming out of my ears about that: it behaved very badly, and that has caused an unbelievable amount of distress. I would like to hear the Under-Secretary's comments on the subject.

Mr Edward Davey (Shadow Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman has introduced an interesting aspect of the debate. I have come across registered social landlords who have not been very good at dealing with that type of tenant. I do not want to anticipate the Under-Secretary's reply, but I understand that best practice guidance is passed on to RSLs through the Housing Corporation and that they are supposed to develop those practices. The chief executives of the various housing associations that let properties in my constituency are aware of that, and I often raise it with them at our quarterly meetings. They have developed some very good practices. If the hon. Gentleman does not want to name the housing association that behaved so badly, he should write to the Housing Corporation about it, because I have seen some brilliant practice.

I recently discussed this issue on a very august body, the Liberal Democrat housing policy group. One of the members of the group, Emily Gasson, is the head of the legal department at an RSL named South Somerset Homes: she has won an award for her work with her RSL in dealing with antisocial behaviour by tenants. She is working with others to improve the guidance on best practice. One feature of that is early intervention by officers, so that people—often children, but sometimes parents—are brought in and talked to and engaged with. That is better than letting things get out of hand and not getting involved: some RSLs stand back and wait for things to reach such a point that the police have to get involved.

I hope that we can deal with this problem if the Under-Secretary reassures us that she is working with the Housing Corporation to ensure that that best practice guidance is in place—and if she can confirm that the Housing Corporation is the body from which the hon. Gentleman should seek redress.

Mr Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

Do the hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary agree that one aspect of the best practice is that landlords of whatever tenure—RSLs, housing association landlords, local authority landlords or private landlords—feel that they have a duty of care not only to their tenants, but to the people in the neighbourhood whose lives are made a misery if those tenants behave in antisocial ways. There should be a shift: landlords should not only look at their tenants as their customers and think that that is the end of the matter; they should also take a broader view of what effect their tenants are having on the community. If we can get all types of landlords to

get into that mindset, we will have made some progress.

Mr Edward Davey (Shadow Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, with which I do not disagree. In my constituency work, it is not the rented sector in any form that is the real problem. If there is a landlord—RSL, council or private—there is someone to go against. However, if the antisocial behaviour is coming from someone in an owner-occupied dwelling, there can be huge problems. That must be thought through in terms of housing policy. I acknowledge that that point might be outside the scope of this debate. I notice that the Minister for Housing and Planning is pointing to somewhere in the Bill: I look forward to a future debate on this matter.

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

I was just asking my right hon. Friend which bit of the Bill he is pointing at.

The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire raises an important point. Antisocial behaviour is not restricted to one type of tenure. The purpose of the Bill is to fill what has been called a gaping hole in the current framework of arrangements for helping landlords to address antisocial behaviour. It does not apply to RSLs because, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said, there is already a mechanism for regulating them and for giving them powers and responsibilities to address antisocial behaviour. Their powers to deal with antisocial behaviour were recently increased as a result of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. Concerns about their responses or about their failure to recognise their responsibilities should and can be taken up with the Housing Corporation and the housing ombudsman.

I urge the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire to raise the matter with Ministers if he has concerns about the operation of the Housing Corporation or about the housing ombudsman's ability to deal with his case. I know that the Housing Corporation takes this issue seriously, and there is a great deal of excellent practice out there. It is an aspect of the Housing Corporation's responsibilities that it is keen to develop. It is, however, right that we deal with RSLs by using that mechanism rather than by attempting to add a regulatory structure through local authorities.

The Bill attempts to address the problem of private sector landlords who, until now, have simply been missing from the picture. Good private sector landlords may take their responsibilities seriously. Until now, however, no one could do anything about private sector landlords who did not. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is right that private sector landlords, who are making money out of their properties in a community, should recognise their responsibilities to the rest of that community just as everyone else does, whether they are the local authority, the RSL, tenants or local residents. This is not the right point at which to enter a debate about owner-occupiers: the problems associated with owner-occupiers are serious, but a debate about them goes beyond the scope of the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.