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. 293, in

clause 70, page 47, line 7, at end insert—

'(ca) the conditions as laid out in section 67(3), 67(6) or by order under 67(7) under which the designation has been made, and'.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

With this we shall take amendment No. 294, in

clause 71, page 47, line 22, at end insert

'in particular, with respect to the objectives or objectives that the designation is intended to achieve.'.

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)

My amendments would ensure that when a designation notification was published, and when a designation was reviewed and potentially revoked, the objectives were made clear. Clauses 70 and 71 do not require the objectives of a designation to be set out in the notice or to be debated when reviewing or revoking a designation.

It is a small point, but if a local authority goes to the trouble of publishing a notice stating various other things in the prescribed manner, that local authority really ought also to say why it has decided to go down the designation route. Has that been done under clause 67(3), which puts forward the set of conditions with regard to economic generation; under clause 67(6), which sets out antisocial behaviour considerations; or under clause 67(7), which sets out further considerations that the Government may make? I wanted clarification from the Minister on why there is no requirement in those processes for a statement of the original objectives of the designation.

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

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning had intended to speak on clause 71. I will briefly answer on the basis of the principle of clause 70. Perhaps the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton will be happy with my answer. If not, my right hon. Friend can supply further details of the implications of amendment No. 294.

The basic principle is that information about the designation's purpose would have to be set out as part of the consultation process. It is right that people should know why their local area is being designated—

is it because of antisocial behaviour, or because of low demand? The local authority would have to set that out in some detail when going through the consultation process in the first instance. If local authorities chose, they could also add information when they set out the final details of the designation. We simply felt that that would be a bureaucratic duplication; the most appropriate time to mention such information is at consultation, when people can debate and appeal against it. We needed to flag up the purpose of the designation at that point, rather than at the conclusion of the process.

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 not going to press the amendment, but I was not terribly convinced by the Under-Secretary's argument that it would be very bureaucratic. It would seem sensible to add one or two lines to a notice to explain why it has been issued in a public manner. Although I will not press the amendment, I would urge the Under-Secretary to talk to her officials about the matter.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill) rose—

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)

Obviously the Minister wants to intervene, to enlighten me.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

Not to intervene, but to respond. The hon. Gentleman can then answer my observations. I am tempted to say that I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and sit down, but my audience would like a little action after a long period of silence on my part.

I shall briefly explain to the hon. Gentleman exactly why the provision in amendment No. 294 is bureaucratic. It is perfectly clear that in making the designation the local authority will have to identify the reasons and purposes for which the designation is made. It is set out in clause 67(6)(a), (b) and (c) that

''the area is experiencing a significant and persistent problem caused by antisocial behaviour . . . that some or all of the private sector landlords . . . are failing to take action to combat the problem''

and to make it a designation would

''lead to a reduction in, or elimination of, the problem.''

In making the designation, the purposes of that designation are clear.

Amendment 294 would require the local authority to specify in its review the purposes for undertaking that review. That, we argue, is bureaucratic and cumbersome and it duplicates activity. The intention behind the requirement for local authorities to carry out these reviews—the principle of which nobody has disputed—is obviously to assess whether the purposes set out in the designation have been achieved. In other words, it is meant to ensure that the objectives behind the designation have been, or are in the process of being, achieved, thereby ensuring that the designation is still necessary. This is exactly the same provision as that in clause 49, for additional HMO licensing. On that occasion, neither the hon. Gentleman nor his colleagues chose to object or stipulate any further qualifications to that proposal.

I understand why the hon. Gentleman tabled his amendment. The purposes for which designations are

made are inevitably going to be taken into account in the review—why on earth do otherwise? To all intents and purposes his concerns are covered in the provisions in clause 67, and for that reason I urge him to withdraw his 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)

I suspect that the Minister would not have minded the amendment being made—I suspect that there is not a lot dividing us on this issue. I was simply trying to work out why the provision was not in there in the first place, and now the Minister tells me that it is implicit. Quite a lot that could be implicit has been included in other parts of the Bill, so I am not totally convinced by the Minister's argument, but we need to make progress, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 71 and 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.