Clause 88 - Special interim management orders
Housing Bill
2:30 pm

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

I shall speak briefly about the clause because we had a longish debate before lunch on the amendment that would have extended the scope of the clause to buildings that were separate and isolated, but specified as being associated with a house that might be licensed. Because, for a moment, I was persuaded that there may be substance to the arguments advanced by Government Members, I took legal and other advice from others during lunch—[Laughter.] I met two local authority leaders, a major developer and have a discussed the matter with, among others, a chief executive of a housing association. You see, Mr. Pike, what elevated circles I move in, although I am not absolutely sure that the fare that I enjoyed was of the standard that one might expect in such circles.

The advice that I received was that it would be unlikely, first, that the local authority could locate a property of the type that I was describing, which might be isolated and separate from the main house, but part of the same business purpose. Local authorities already have considerable difficulties identifying such operations. Secondly, in the Bill, clause 88, ''enjoyed'' is used to mean ''associated with'' . . . I guess that that does not mean to take pleasure from, but to have use of. The word ''enjoyed'' would be a fairly slight premise on which to pursue a legal case in respect of a building which, as my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) said, might be on a separate parcel of land, but on the estate of a landlord who was engaged in the business of renting to vulnerable people, for example.

I have yet to be convinced that the case made by the Minister for Housing and Planning is correct. It should be remembered that he said specifically that outhouses and glasshouses that were not attached to or in the garden of a property, but had some association with it, would be covered. I am not sure that that is true. If outbuildings on a farm—barns, for example—were being used inappropriately to house people, I am not sure that the Bill as it stands would be sufficiently robust to allow a local authority to take action. Given the reticence of local authorities to exercise new powers in anything like the permissive way that was referred to in an earlier debate, it is essential that the Minister takes away the proposal and considers it again.

I have been less brief than I had intended, but I wanted to emphasise to the Minister that we may return to this matter. I am convinced that the Bill might contain a genuine loophole and open up an area of practice that the Minister, his colleagues and Opposition Members do not want to permit or encourage. I just wanted to update hon. Members on the exciting and informative discussions that I have had since we met previously.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 88, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: Before I call the next amendment, I point out that there are a number of new papers on the table, which I am sure hon. Members want to study. In addition, if there are Divisions in the House, I shall suspend the Committee for 15 minutes each time. I do not know whether Divisions are likely—we will see how things progress.