Clause 77 - Licence conditions
Housing Bill
2:45 pm

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 and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 296, in

clause 77, page 51, line 25, after 'requiring', insert 'reasonable'.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 292, in

clause 77, page 51, line 26, at end insert—

'(ba) conditions requiring the written statement of terms in paragraph 1 (5) of Schedule 4 to contain details of—

(i) the responsibilities of the occupier in respect of his own conduct;

(ii) the responsibilities of the occupier in respect of the conduct of other occupiers and visitors;

(iii) the ways in which the licence holder may address any nuisance or annoyance caused to others by persons occupying or visiting the house.'.

No. 298, in

clause 77, page 52, line 10, at end insert

', except in relation to matters contained in Schedule 4 to this Act.'.

No. 310, in

clause 77, page 51, line 30, at end insert—

'(d) conditions regarding equipment necessary to limit the susceptibility to fire hazards'.

As with the previous amendment, many of the arguments relating to these amendments were rehearsed at our sitting on Tuesday. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) explained our position. I was in the Gallery to hear the Under-Secretary's reply to the debate and, with respect to the force of amendment No. 296, she made it clear that she considered that the notion of authorities and landlords taking ''reasonable'' steps was already implicit in local authority legislation more generally. She may wish to confirm that in response to this debate. I shall not talk about the amendment too much more, although it would not be too onerous to add ''reasonable'' to the clause to remind people who implement the legislation that they should be reasonable, which some tend sometimes to forget.

I am grateful to Shelter for its help in drafting amendment No. 292. We want to make sure that the issues in respect of antisocial behaviour are made clear to the tenants, when they sign their contracts. It does not seem too onerous to ask for written statements of terms that are required under schedule 4. The amendment refers to the

''responsibilities of the occupier in respect of his own conduct''

and

''the responsibilities of the occupier in respect of the conduct of other occupiers and visitors''.

Such key points go to the heart of the practical debate about antisocial behaviour. We have had such a debate before, so I shall not prolong my remarks now. However, will the Under-Secretary give me a clear explanation of why it would be wrong to ask for written statements to cover such points because that seems very much line with the Government's approach?

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

The hon. Gentleman has hit upon an interesting and useful point. It seems that there is a relationship between the responsibilities of occupiers and those of their visitors. He will know, as will members of the Committee, that in our casework issues frequently arise when an occupier's visitors cause as much difficulty in the neighbourhood as the occupier does himself. I shall not go into great detail, but I am sure that there will be many occasions when the relevant authorities have not been able to solve a problem, not because the people causing it did not have a legal relationship with them but because they were visitors to a house. That applies to local authority properties and properties of registered social landlords, as well as private properties. It is a valid point to raise at this stage of our proceedings.

I am, however, concerned about proposed new sub-paragraph (ii), which refers to

''the responsibility of the occupier in respect of the conduct of other occupiers''.

That is a more difficult point to make persuasively, given that the other occupiers might be responsible adults. It is dangerous to include in legislation the idea that one adult should bear responsibility for the behaviour of another, whom they may not be able to influence.

3:00 pm

I am trying to understand the hon. Gentleman's point, because he agreed with the inclusion of ''visitors'', who may also be adults, in proposed new sub-paragraph (ii). His argument about other occupiers should apply to visitors. Is he being inconsistent?

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

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is far too intelligent to be unable to make that distinction. If someone is invited to a home as a visitor, it is not unreasonable for an occupier to have some responsibility for what they do. That is the common experience of most people who invite visitors to their home, be they friends, acquaintances or family members. One's relationship with another occupier in the same premises is entirely different. The proper duty and responsibility in respect of visitors do not necessarily extend to other occupiers, who might not agree with one's view of what is responsible. There is an essential difference between those two relationships.

The hon. Gentleman made a forceful point with respect to visitors, but it would be difficult to enforce proposed new sub-paragraph (ii), which would mean that one occupier should have responsibility for another. That would be impossible for any authority to implement. He has not intervened to clarify the point further, so on that basis I am at pains to point

out that, although we have sympathy for the principle of the amendment, the detail is deeply flawed.

Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton North, Labour)

I wish to raise certain issues, although it may be appropriate to respond on them later. There used to be a process for short-lifing substandard properties—particularly in London, Birmingham and other big cities—so that they were used by housing authorities to house groups of people, especially young, single people, who would tolerate lower living standards. Housing associations finally began to object to that practice. They argued that the system was supposed to extend the life of a property and relieve housing pressures in high-demand areas, but that it ended up condoning and institutionalising substandard housing instead of demolishing it and rebuilding.

How will licensing work to improve areas of housing, rather than institutionalising areas of substandard housing and condoning housing that should be demolished? If thought is not given to the management, and the implementation is not monitored, it could end up having that perverse effect. The standards built into the licence conditions might ensure that licensing improves housing, rather than becoming a means for accepting substandard accommodation. I am not asking for a reply now, but comments later would be helpful.

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

First, let me respond to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). I will talk to her further about the situations she discussed and respond in writing in due course. The Bill's intention is certainly not to institutionalise substandard housing, but to provide mechanisms—the levers—for local authorities to improve an area if they cannot currently do so. We should consider that in the context not simply of selective licensing measures and those for houses in multiple occupation, but of the proposals relating to interim management orders, which we have yet to discuss. Some of those mechanisms may be the right way to deal with the problem that my hon. Friend describes. Perhaps we can discuss that further.

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

I wonder whether we are returning to the issue of the consultation and the reasons for designation. If those reasons are set out clearly during the process of consultation and notification, and they bear heavily on a desire to improve the area, that may go some way towards satisfying the concern voiced by the hon. Member for Northampton, North. If the reasons for the designation being made and the objectives or ideal outcomes are clear to all concerned—landlord, tenant and the neighbourhood—the problem that she quite understandably raises could be avoided.

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

That may be a factor. Certainly the way in which an area is designated, the reasons for that and the need to be clear about the fact that the process of selective licensing will contribute to the objective will be important. So, too, may be the conditions prescribed in the circumstances and what conditions are appropriate. Those will vary from area to area, depending on the nature of the problem.

Some additional issues, such as IMOs, might be a way to deal with the matter. When a property does not get a licence or cannot be licensed because the licence holder or the applicant is not a fit and proper person, or for whatever reason, there may be other action that the local authority can take at that point. That action may be critical to preventing the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North describes.

Clause 77, which is similar to clause 56, states that certain conditions, which are set out in schedule 4, must be included in the licence, and lists the type of conditions that local authorities may include. The list is not exhaustive.

Let me respond to the four amendments. The discussion on amendment No. 296 was similar to the one that we had on clause 56. As I said then, the word ''reasonable'' is not necessary in this context, for two reasons. First, the beginning of clause 77(2) already includes the phrase

''so far as appropriate in the circumstances'',

so the reasonableness test is implicit. Secondly, a local authority, just like any other public body, is subject to the reasonableness test anyway. That word is part of the test that local authorities must meet.

Amendment No. 310 raises issues similar to those that have already been debated. Under clause 77(2)(c), it is already possible to include equipment necessary to limit susceptibility to fire hazards. Some of those issues are also dealt with in part 1.

Amendments Nos. 292 and 298 raise interesting issues. On the face of it, amendment No. 292 appears perfectly sensible. It suggests that one condition that local authorities may want to consider is requiring a written statement of terms to include various matters, including the responsibilities of the occupier. All that is possible already. The amendment would be to clause 77(2), which lists the conditions that local authorities may include, but that list is not exhaustive.

The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton did not mention amendment No. 298, but it raises some of the most interesting issues. There are questions about the relationship between clause 77(2) and (6), which states:

''A licence may not include conditions requiring . . . any alteration in the terms of any tenancy or licence under which any person occupies the house.''

Subsection (6) was intended to make it clear that selective licensing is not about reintroducing rent control or getting into that debate. Equally, there are questions about things that might already be in a tenancy and that could affect the conditions that a local authority might want to include in a licence.

I have already said that I would look further at clause 56 and the wording that we discussed on controlling behaviour. For those reasons, I would now like to look further at clause 77 and at the interaction between the two subsections in question. I shall report back to the Committee later. On that basis, I ask the

hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton to withdraw his amendment.

I am pleased that the Under-Secretary mentioned amendment No. 298, which occurred to me late at night, when I was trying to understand how different things in the Bill worked together. I forgot to mention that amendment, but it obviously pleased her and her officials more than any of my other amendments.

I thank the Under-Secretary, because subsection (6), to which amendment No. 298 relates, could create difficulties and inconsistencies, and it is right that she should consider that. I am also grateful that she reiterated the point about the word ''controlling'' in subsection (2)(b) and how that mirrors our debate on clause 56. Given such a helpful reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment No. 297, in

clause 77, page 51, line 26, leave out 'relating to'.

This is obviously the most important amendment that we have had to debate. Actually, it is a drafting amendment that I assume the Government will accept forthwith. As drafted, subsection (2)(b) says that

''conditions requiring steps to be taken with a view to controlling relating to the behaviour of persons occupying or visiting the house''.

That does not read terribly well and I think it is grammatically incorrect. The amendment would delete ''relating to'' and make subsection (2)(b) read correctly. The only reason that I can think of for not accepting it readily is that the Under-Secretary is going to review the word ''controlling''. However, we have not had an answer on that yet, so I hope she accepts the amendment.

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

I accept the hon. Gentleman's entirely sensible amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 77, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 78 and 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77 - Licence conditions
Housing Bill
2:45 pm

Donate

Sign up to our newsletter

Clause 77 - Licence conditionsHousing Bill2:45 pm

Donate

Sign up to our newsletter

Clause 77 - Licence conditions
Housing Bill
2:45 pm