Clause 68 - Designations under section 67: further considerations
Housing Bill
2:30 pm

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking amendment No. 287, in

clause 68, page 45, line 43, at end insert

', and

(c) as regards its homelessness strategy and the provision of advice and assistance to those likely to be affected by the designation.'.

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

Clause 68 sets out further requirements that the local housing authority must consider in exercising the power to make designations under clause 67. Under clause 68(2), a local housing authority must ensure that the use of selective licensing is in accordance with the local housing authority's overall housing strategy. In using that power, subsection (3) requires a local authority to adopt a co-ordinated approach when dealing with homelessness, empty properties and antisocial behaviour by combining licensing measures with other measures taken by it and other agencies.

Amendments Nos. 287 and 288 would insert a provision requiring a local authority, having regard to its homelessness strategy, to make provision for advice and assistance to those likely to be affected by the designation. The local authority already has obligations relating to homelessness under part 7 of the Housing Act 1996. It is true that people who become homeless as a result of an eviction because of their deliberate behaviour are likely to be considered intentionally homeless if they apply for help under the homelessness legislation. Even in those circumstances, the housing authority would be required to provide them with advice and assistance to help to them find accommodation for themselves. Additionally, if the household fell within a priority need group—for

example, a family with children—the authority would have to ensure that they had accommodation available for a short period.

More generally, all housing authorities are required to have a strategy for preventing homelessness in their district and ensuring that accommodation and support are available for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. That must embrace all homeless groups, including people who become homeless intentionally. Those who become homeless unintentionally are clearly covered by the local authority's usual obligations for support for the homeless, which includes advice and assistance.

Mr Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

While the Under-Secretary is talking about intentional and unintentional homelessness, can she confirm my understanding that intentional homelessness will include those people who engage in persistent antisocial behaviour? Will such behaviour be deemed behaviour that is responsible for making them intentionally homeless?

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

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is likely that someone who had been engaging in consistent antisocial behaviour and was evicted as a result would be assumed to have been made intentionally homeless. It is right that private landlords, as well as local authorities and social landlords, should have as the ultimate sanction for dealing with antisocial behaviour the ability to evict tenants or to threaten eviction when necessary. It should only be the ultimate sanction because a whole range of measures can be used before evictions need to take place, including antisocial behaviour orders. It is also right that we should work with families to try to support and improve their behaviour and deal with the problem in other ways, but it is also important that there is an ultimate sanction; otherwise we could end up with the situation in which neighbours have to move out or feel like prisoners in their own home because nothing can be done.

It is equally right that there are responsibilities towards the homeless. There are already in existing legislation obligations to the homeless, which include the provision of assistance and advice to those who are intentionally homeless. As the clause mentions explicitly the importance of homelessness and links it with the homelessness work of the local authority, the amendments are unnecessary. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) 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 and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

The Under-Secretary's response was helpful. If I understand her correctly, she is saying that local authorities ought to have regard to their existing homelessness strategy—their obligations for prevention, advice and assistance—as they set about introducing a selective licensing regime. It is good to have that on record. Although there is an indication in the first two sentences of subsection (3) that that is the case, it is important that local authorities realise that they must have a joined-up approach to housing. They need to have a partnership approach with landlords and other agencies in their area, particularly the voluntary sector, because we must ensure that the

Bill does not create the unintended consequence of an increase in homelessness.

On the basis that I have understood the Under-Secretary correctly—and she indicates that I have—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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. 290, in

clause 68, page 46, line 2, leave out 'an' and insert 'a more'.

For the benefit of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) I should say that I have brought my passport along: the record of our recent discussions might help you to understand that comment, Mr. Pike.

The amendment is intended to ensure that the test in subsection (4)(a) is high enough. The Government are saying that local housing authorities cannot make a designation under clause 67 to selectively licence an area unless they have

''considered whether there are any other courses of action available to them (of whatever nature) that might provide an effective method of achieving the objective or objectives that the designation would be intended to achieve''.

I want us to think about whether authorities should be required to consider whether there is ''a more'' effective method of achieving those objectives.

Situations could arise in which there are alternatives to going down the selective licensing route, but it might be difficult to ensure that one of them is the best route to go down. I am trying to help the Government, and thus local authorities. I want local authorities to be able to say, ''Well, there other ways of meeting these objectives, but they are not as effective as, or more effective than, the licensing route.'' It is a small point, but it is in keeping with the spirit of what the Government are trying to do.

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

I acknowledge the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. It would be appropriate if these different strategies were alternatives—if there was either the approach of introducing selective licensing or other approaches and only one of them could be chosen. In practice, we would expect selective licensing to be one of a series of different approaches adopted at the same time: for example, it could be complementary with approaches using ASBOs or involving other work with the police or other agencies in the local area. Another course of action might be available that might be more effective.

ASBOs might be the most effective course of action, but they might not solve the whole problem on their own. In addition to them, it might be sensible to introduce selective licensing, although that might not have such a big impact. The test that we have set means that the alternatives need to have been considered because selective licensing might be unnecessary, and the way in which the different strategies might appropriately link together must be considered because it is unlikely that selective licensing will be effective on its own. The real test is whether

''making the designation will significantly assist them in achieving the objective or objectives (whether or not they take any other course of action as well).''

Even if authorities are issuing ASBOs, which they think will make the greatest difference, they might get even further if they add selective licensing on top. The thrust of the amendment is that they should try the more effective methods first and then, if they fail, switch to selective licensing. It would be appropriate to allow them to do both.

Mr Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

While the Under-Secretary is talking about ASBOs, I point out that my recent experience in cases of very nasty antisocial behaviour is that it has been impossible for the police to establish an ASBO, because neighbours have been too frightened for their own safety to come forward. The Minister referred to a range of sanctions, going up to eviction. Given that my experience of ASBOs has been disappointing, can she elaborate on what, other than eviction, is left?

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

Clearly local authorities can take sanctions using evictions, and the police might be able to take further criminal action, depending on the nature of the behaviour involved. I did not necessarily mean that ASBOs are more effective than selective licensing. There might be occasions on which they are not; that will always be difficult to evaluate. I am simply making the point that in circumstances in which ASBOs would be more effective, the amendment would mean that one was prevented from introducing selective licensing until one had fully implemented ASBOs, or taken that approach seriously. The thrust of the Bill is to allow local authorities to use a range of strategies, but it is important that they consider all the options first. They must also be clear that selective licensing will have benefits and that it will not prove unnecessary once other options have been taken into account. On that basis, I invite the hon. Gentleman 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 and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I shall seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment, because the Minister has reassured me that subsection (4)(a) and (b) are not intended to prevent selective licensing from being chosen. I was concerned that the drafting might mean that the local authority had to show that it had tried various other strategies first. Potentially, the local authority could be judicially reviewed by landlords who were trying to put obstacles in the way. However, I understand from the Minister's reply that selective licensing can be implemented alongside other measures, and that reassures me.

The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) made some interesting points. He is probably aware that there are many other sanctions before ASBOs which do not require statutory cover, such as acceptable behaviour contracts and parental control agreements. Those have been tried in my constituency and piloted by colleagues in Islington, Liverpool and many other areas. They are very effective and much cheaper to implement, because they do not require a visit to the courts, with all the evidence that that requires.

Mr Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

The people involved in the case that is seared on my memory, and to which I have referred frequently in this Committee, are adults, and acceptable behaviour contracts are generally, as I understand it, for children, so would not be appropriate.

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)

Because acceptable behaviour contracts are not a statutory device, the local authority need not restrict them to children. One can use such techniques, and many local authorities have done so successfully. I would be out of order if I continued along that path, so I shall beg to ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.