Lembit Öpik (Shadow Minister (Housing), Department for Communities and Local Government; Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 105, in clause 261, page 108, line 2, at end insert—

‘(1A) In an action for possession of a family intervention tenancy, the court shall have power to—

(a) postpone the date for possession; or

(b) stay or suspend execution of the order

on such terms as it thinks fit.

(1B) The court shall not have the power referred to in subsection (1A) where the notice in subsection (1) was served on the basis that the tenant or a member of his household has been guilty of conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to a person residing, visiting or otherwise engaging in a lawful activity in the locality.’.

What concerns us is that the legislation, as it is currently drafted, means that the 28-day notice period for a FIT can be issued for any reason and not solely  one linked to antisocial behaviour, for example due to rent arrears caused by housing benefit delays, and so forth.

The test as to what behaviour would merit possession, or—to be more frank about it and use common parlance—eviction is, in our view, simply not robust enough. That is what the amendment attempts to correct. The purpose is to allow the court to retain its discretion, which it has in the case of a secure or assured tenancy, to dismiss a claim for possession, or to grant a suspended possession, where the reason for the landlord’s action is not antisocial behaviour, but something else, such as rent arrears. The amendment would ensure that fast-track eviction proceedings available for family intervention tenancies could be used for antisocial behaviour reasons only.

The process for family intervention projects and tenancies has been laid out by the Government, which hopefully we all understand. However, under the Bill, if the landlord decides to continue with proceedings for possession after following the process for family intervention tenancies, the county court cannot examine the reasons for doing so. We are concerned about the inflexibility there, and the lack of discretion to refuse an order raises alarm bells for us. We seek the Minister’s perspective on that, because we cannot believe that it is right, nor the Government’s intention, to create a process so inflexible that it could be a breach of natural justice for the tenant. Although landlords could use the provision in many ways, it goes against the spirit of what I think the Government are trying to do with this legislation. Shelter feels the same, and on its behalf I ask the Minister to share his perspective and to take on board what I think is a fairly common-sense modification to this part of the Bill.

Iain Wright (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Hartlepool, Labour)

I disagree with the amendment, although I appreciate the manner in which the hon. Gentleman moved it. If we accepted the amendment, it would allow the courts to postpone, stay or suspend an order for possession granted in respect of a common law tenancy. As I think that he said, currently that is not the case. A court must award possession if it is satisfied that due process has been followed, and set the date on which the landlord can gain possession of the property.

If, for instance, a family wilfully refuse to pay rent for the family intervention project accommodation that they are occupying, having voluntarily agreed to do so, the amendment would mean that the courts had the power to decide whether, and on what terms, the tenant might remain in the property. That would create a situation similar to that of secure or assured tenancies. I believe strongly that that would seriously undermine our proposal that family intervention tenancies should be common law tenancies. We want to provide landlords with greater flexibility in arranging tenancies for families who have voluntarily accepted support and who are housed in specialist accommodation.

Family intervention projects have been proven to deliver notable successes in helping families address the root causes of antisocial behaviour. To give courts the discretion proposed by this amendment would threaten the use of family intervention tenancies as an effective  tool in encouraging families to comply with the terms of their support contract. In other words, in voluntarily accepting a family intervention tenancy, they should be aware of the consequences of their actions. If they subsequently refuse to meet the conditions of the tenancy, the landlord may move to evict swiftly.

I understand what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said, however, and his concerns about clause 261. We are mindful already of the need to guard against the misuse of family intervention tenancies and have provided safeguards in this clause, including a right to a review of the reason why eviction is being sought under a local authority family intervention tenancy. In addition to that review procedure, it is possible, if the tenant deems it necessary, to apply for judicial review of the reason for a decision to evict.

If one accepts the premise, which I do not, that the courts should be given discretion where possession under a family intervention tenancy is sought, I question the validity of removing that discretion solely where possession is sought on antisocial behaviour grounds. I think that the hon. Gentleman made that point himself, so in some respects I am making his argument for him, which was not my intention. However, it would mean that courts would have discretion over matters such as rent arrears, with which it is relatively easy to demonstrate matters of fact, but not in cases of antisocial behaviour, in which issues are often much more complex and open to subjectivity. On that basis, I disagree with the amendment. I think that we have covered this matter adequately in the Bill, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Lembit Öpik (Shadow Minister (Housing), Department for Communities and Local Government; Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

Well, Mr. Gale, the Minister makes the case for the amendment, and then asks me to withdraw it. In fairness to the Government, they have shown active recognition of the link between antisocial behaviour and the social needs of perpetrators—we all agree on that. Also, Shelter has done some research to back up the effectiveness of taking a support approach, so there is no disagreement there. In terms of enforcement, communities need protection, and it is appropriate for housing providers to use measures available to them to enforce the responsibilities laid out in tenancy agreements. However, the Minister’s argument goes wrong on its non-acceptance that this approach balances the legislation against the tenant and in favour of the landlord. The FIPs are voluntary, as he says, but surely this is a significant disincentive to families taking part in the project, not least because it seems to make their tenancies less secure.

Iain Wright (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Hartlepool, Labour)

Is not that precisely the point? The voluntary nature—I remind the hon. Gentleman of our discussions on previous amendments—helps to strengthen the information provided to families, so that they are fully aware of the consequences. Families have to enter the process voluntarily.

Lembit Öpik (Shadow Minister (Housing), Department for Communities and Local Government; Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

That involves an assumption that every family will have a full and confident grasp of the legislation and terms of the tenancy, but such families often are not good advocates for their own best interests. In some senses, that is why they have  difficulties in the first place. The Minister is ignoring the reality that various families will not be able to digest and interpret the legislation in their interests and are therefore susceptible to being victimised by its effective use by others. The notice to quit on a family intervention tenancy can be issued for any reason, not solely for antisocial behaviour. That is wrong.

The test as to what behaviour would merit possession is not robust enough. Landlords often feel that possession is merited, but that view has not always been backed by the courts. The position taken here will actively alter circumstances for many families. That is why the courts should have the power to exercise discretion when antisocial behaviour is not the basis on which the landlord seeks possession.

This part of the legislation was conceived primarily to deal with antisocial issues, but mission creep has meant that it now has a broader remit. We are uncomfortable about the clause, as is Shelter. In other circumstances, I would push the matter to a vote, but I shall not do so, given the shortage of time. However, I give notice that we may return to this issue on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.