I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 11, line 1, after `any', insert `deliberate, wilful or negligent'.

With this it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 9, in page 11, line 4, at end insert—

`(d) any record of behaviour of a person (or a member of his household) which has affected the terms of a previous tenancy he has held.'.

During the Committee's second sitting, Mr. Gale, in your absence Mr. Griffiths made a heroic attempt to match your legendary firmness and fairness in the Chair. He heard me deploy an argument never used before; we might call it argument C. I sought to persuade the Government that if, in one set of circumstances, they adopt approach X rather than approach Y, it would be perverse of them to adopt the previously rejected Y in another similar set of circumstances. The Government were not persuaded of the merit of trying to achieve symmetry in legislation, or of taking a constant approach in similar situations. I hope that it will not try either your or the Committee's patience, Mr. Gale, if I try again.

On this occasion, I suggest that it is perverse to adopt one approach for only two out of three circumstances, and to use a different one for the third. We have had a helpful, albeit brief, debate, in which the Minister and the hon. Member for Eastbourne discussed how to deal with what the latter described as

``the problem of . . . so-called neighbours from hell''.—[Official Report, 2 July 2001; Vol.371, c. 46.]

They both acknowledged that it is vital to balance the different approaches; on the one hand, what the hon. Member for Eastbourne calls the Shelter argument, and on the other, the LGA argument.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne is correct to say that we must get the balance right. I agree with him and with the Minister that the Bill adopts a sensible way forward. In the legislation, there are three stages at which an authority can take into account the behaviour of an applicant. The first is in determining the eligibility of the applicant to be treated as a homeless person, the second is in adjusting the level of priority, and the third is in the ability to remove all the priority. The behaviour that we discussed can be taken into account at those three stages.

The first appears in proposed new section 160A(7) and (8) of the Housing Act 1996, which is in Clause 13(2). Under it, the authority will be able to decide that an applicant's behaviour is

``unacceptable . . . enough to make him unsuitable to be a tenant''.

That is even before housing need has been taken into account. The provision has been added since the Homes Bill left the House of Commons. The test to determine suitability will be whether the authority is entitled to a possession order under section 84 of the Housing Act 1985.

The third stage to which I referred is covered in proposed new section 167(2)(b) to (d) of the 1996 Act, which is in clause 15(3). That will allow the authority to remove all preference from applicants, irrespective of their need. Again, the provisions were added by the Government in the Standing Committee on the Homes Bill, although they have been amended since that Bill left the House of Commons. To have all preference removed, an applicant must be guilty of unacceptable behaviour serious enough to make him unsuitable to be a tenant. The same test—the authority's entitlement to a possession order—will be applied.

In two of the three stages, what we understand by unacceptable behaviour is specified precisely, as is the test. I am delighted about that, as there is clear symmetry in the Government's proposals. However, there are three points at which behaviour can be taken into account, the other one being the adjustment of priority. That is covered in proposed new section 167(2A) of the 1996 Act, which is in clause 15(3). Once the authority has determined whether an applicant falls into the category of housing need that entitles him to be given reasonable preference, the priority given to him will be adjusted according to his financial resources, his connection to the locality and

``any behaviour . . . which affects his suitability to be a tenant''.

The provision does not mention the tests set in the other two stages.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne rightly drew our attention to his concern that some authorities use the loose language of existing legislation to exclude people willy-nilly. He gave an example—it might be an extreme case—of one such authority. I agreed with him when he said that it would be wrong for an authority simply to have a blanket exclusion policy, as some do.

My concern is simple. If we have sensibly decided, with much agreement throughout the Committee, that some clearly defined test is needed for such behaviour, it is perverse that the definition is missing from one of the three provisions on the subject. As a result, authorities that choose to exclude people on a low level of testing may have all the problems that the hon. Gentleman described and that the Minister wants to avoid.

I have, therefore, proposed an Amendment that would make the level of testing reasonable. For example, it would cover any antisocial, threatening or violent behaviour, as well as applicants who have wilfully refused to pay rent in the past, or who have deliberately caused damage to their own or other people's properties. We want to tackle all those issues. That is why I have included the provision that the behaviour should be deliberate, wilful or negligent.

I hope that this will provide an opportunity to ensure that on this occasion we have symmetry on all three points on which the issue of behaviour can be addressed. Failure to achieve that would mean that the good intentions of the Bill in the other two areas would be completely undermined. Without such provision, a council, in adjusting priority, can simply do whatever it likes, whether it is to be extremely tough or extremely lenient, and will not necessarily achieve the sensible balance that the Government and the Committee have now decided is right.

I rise to make a brief comment on the Amendment proposed by the Liberal Democrats, but more particularly to propose amendment No. 9, which relates to the issue of tenant records of behaviour. We are pleased that the Bill has been beefed up after its previous outing. It now gives a higher regard to the suitability of tenants—assessed on the basis of their behaviour—who are offered accommodation. The Local Government Association's comments are worth noting, and I concur with them:

``it is important that local authorities retain an element of discretion over the use of their own stock. As landlords the local authority must consider the needs and rights of both individual applicants and the surrounding community when determining individual allocations. It would be perverse if an applicant who was evicted for anti-social behaviour or racial harassment then has the right to be offered other council accommodation simply because he has a priority need or because there is no other applicant prepared to accept a particular dwelling. It would effectively make evictions a pointless procedure and would undermine any incentive to such applicants, and to other tenants, to improve their behaviour or pay off their rent arrears.''

The LGA continues by stating that it does not want the terms of the Bill to be weakened in any way. Amendment No. 9 seeks to strengthen those intentions to avoid any confusion later.

We have spoken at length this morning, and previously, about the menace of antisocial neighbours—neighbours from hell. I am sure that all members of the Committee know of numerous such cases in their constituencies. Although there is obviously a degree of duty of care to everybody, there must be a greater duty of care to those tenants of councils and social landlords who play by the rules.

Under the current system, there is little to incentivise good behaviour--if a tenant looks after his or her house, keeps it in a fairly good state of repair, maintains the appearance of the house and the garden, makes sure that the children do not run amok on the estate, is generally a good citizen and pays the rent on time. It is also hard to penalise the tenant who sticks two fingers up at those rules.

When we discussed the matter in previous Committees, we talked about the methods used by housing associations such as the Irwell Valley Housing Association in Salford, which has turned the whole scheme on its head, so that good tenants can opt into a gold service scheme and specifically be rewarded for being good tenants. That so marginalises bad tenants that the reasons for them to be bad tenants almost disappear. The measures that can be brought in against bad behaviour are more effective.

The point about the amendment is the timing. Proposed new subsection (2C)(b) refers to tenants who do not deserve

``to be treated as a member of a group of people who are to be given preference'' and states that the assessment of their bad behaviour is limited to the time at which the case is considered. Account might be taken only of a tenant's recent behaviour, but serial bad neighbours often move from one authority to the next, effectively with a clean sheet. There is a weakness in the system in that respect. Conservative Members want there to be a mutual reference scheme so that councils can place on a database details of bad tenants who have been the subject of evictions or criminal proceedings. A council that is taking a new family into its area could do some checking before placing the family on a priority homeless list.

Does my hon. Friend agree that housing authorities often do not want to pass information about bad tenants to other authorities because they want to get rid of them? It is a matter of expediency.

That is precisely the point to which I was coming. There are two sides to the issue. To name no names, the boroughs of large urban conurbations near my local authority and, I am sure, those of other hon. Members, face enormous housing pressures. That is true not least of London boroughs, which now send problem tenants to the south coast in particular and fill up bed-and-breakfast and other accommodation, which is in desperately short supply. After six months, the tenants become the responsibility of the host borough.

Housing authorities should have full access to the previous records of tenants, particularly bad tenants. We are not able to set up such a structure under the Bill, but we are trying to include a facility whereby housing authorities can use previous tenancy records from outside their district as ammunition in turning down applications for priority homeless status. They currently have no way of being aware of such records unless they do substantial checking. If they do, it can become clear that families have caused problems elsewhere. It is only fair that such issues be taken into account. It is a question not simply of the person in whose name the tenancy is held, but of the whole household.

I realise the practical implications of that, and the system is not ideal for trying to implement such a measure. We are simply trying to broaden the scope for the judgment of bad behaviour. We want to include not only recent bad behaviour in a district, but a longer history of bad behaviour. That is especially pertinent where serial bad neighbours cause mayhem in one district and are turfed out, only to arrive at the door of a housing authority in a neighbouring district or further away.

That is the intention behind the Amendment. It would give local authority housing departments greater powers to say, ``Hold on a minute. We are not going to put you on a housing list on an equal basis with other, more worthy claimants.'' There might be other ways of dealing with the issue, such as stiffer probationary housing terms. If tenants did not get their act together within six or 12 months, it would be easier to move them on to alternative accommodation.

The amendment is intended to add to the way in which the Government have already strengthened the provisions by greater reference to bad behaviour.

Clause 15 sets a revised framework for local authorities' letting schemes. It sets out matters that must or may be included in a housing authority's allocation scheme. It also sets out revised reasonable preference categories and provides for authorities to give additional preference to certain groups with urgent housing needs. In addition, it gives important new rights to applicants to obtain information and ask for a review of certain decisions concerning their application.

It is right that applicants should, wherever practical, be offered choice in accommodation. We want to widen the scope for movement across local authority boundaries and between local authority and registered social landlord stock, to promote better use of national stock, but we do not want to be too prescriptive. The right way forward is for local housing authorities and registered social landlords to decide, in the light of local circumstances, how to develop their existing arrangements.

Before I discuss the amendments, I should briefly explain the provisions on assessing priorities and preferences in the light of an applicant's behaviour. Under new section 167(2A) of the 1996 Act, allocation schemes

``may contain provision for determining priorities in allocating housing accommodation to people within subsection (2)''.

New subsection (2A) also provides that

``factors which the scheme may allow to be taken into account include—

(a) the financial resources available to a person to meet his housing costs;

(b) any behaviour of a person (or of a member of his household) which affects his suitability to be a tenant;''

``(c) any local connection . . . which exists between a person and the authority's district.''

New subsection (2B) allows authorities to give no preference to applicants—even those who come into one of the reasonable preference categories—if new subsection (2C) applies to them. There are three tests of whether it applies. The first two are the same as the first two tests under clause 13, which allow authorities to treat an applicant as ineligible for housing. Those are, first, that the applicant or a member of the household has been guilty of unacceptable behaviour—these are the tests described by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)—and, secondly, that the authority is satisfied that the behaviour is serious enough to make the applicant unsuitable as a tenant of the authority.

The third test is that the authority is satisfied that, in the circumstances at the time the case is considered, the applicant deserves not to be treated as someone who should be given preference. I stress that each individual case must be considered on its merits and that the provision does not allow authorities to operate blanket bans on groups of applicants. People guilty of unacceptable behaviour may still be given preference if the authority feels that their situation warrants it.

New section 167(2D) provides that unacceptable behaviour for the purpose in question is exactly the same as unacceptable behaviour for the purpose of deciding that an applicant is ineligible for housing. It cross-refers to the terms set out in new subsection 160A(8), dealt with in clause 13—the fault grounds set out in part I of schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985.

There are safeguards built into the provisions—the tension discussed by the hon. Member for Bath is relevant here. This is important. New subsection 167(4A)(b) gives applicants the right to ask to be informed of decisions about the facts of their case and decisions that they deserve not to be given preference. New subsection 167(4A)(c) gives applicants the right to request a review of any decision that they deserve not to be given preference or that they are to be treated as ineligible for housing. It also gives them the right to be informed of the review decision and the grounds for it. Those are important safeguards in view of the serious issues, and the decisions that the housing authority would be making.

On Amendment No. 9, I assure the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) that the Bill allows for a person's past to be taken into account. Clause 15(3), which inserts new section 167(2A)(b), states that

``any behaviour of a person (or of a member of his household) which affects his suitability to be a tenant'' may be taken into account. New sections 167(2B) to (2D) also make it clear that past behaviour can be taken into account. That behaviour may lie in the past, but account must be taken of current circumstances. If there is clear evidence that an applicant has reformed or that the circumstances that led to his or her unacceptable behaviour have changed, then the authority must have regard to that evidence and should assess whether the applicant is likely to behave in an unacceptable manner if allocated housing now.

Part of the argument put forward by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham reminded me of the debate about antisocial behaviour orders. It is important to remember that this Bill addresses a different subject. Given my assurance that past behaviour can be taken into account but must be weighed up, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment.

Amendment No. 10 seeks to ensure that, where an applicant's behaviour makes him unsuitable to be a tenant, it will count against him only where the behaviour is deliberate, wilful or negligent. I understand the good intentions behind the amendment, but I am concerned that it would erect a further barrier to local authorities in their efforts to deal with antisocial behaviour. While it is important that those who have behaved in an antisocial or unacceptable way should be given the opportunity to show that they have reformed, it is also important for local authorities to be able to protect the vast Majority of law-abiding tenants who wish only for a peaceful and pleasant life.

Local authorities must be given the discretion to make balanced judgments on the basis of their knowledge of individual circumstances. Every time we specify in the Bill further conditions that the authorities must take into account, we limit local authorities' ability to make decisions which, on the basis of their local and particular knowledge, they consider to be in the best interest of the majority of tenants and residents. The amendment would invite argument and potential litigation about each of the words it inserts.

First, will the Minister confirm that I was correct in saying earlier that the Bill contains no definition of the behaviour that would allow local authorities to make an adjustment of priority? Secondly, will she confirm that, in respect of the removal of all priority or the determination of eligibility, there is a definition of what the priority is, namely that the authority will be entitled to a possession order? Thirdly, if she can confirm both, even if she does not like my Amendment, does she agree that it might be acceptable to have some sort of definition where there is currently a huge, gaping hole in the Bill?

I am sure that if I make a mistake, a correction will be supplied, and I shall give it to the hon. Gentleman in writing. He is right that there is no definition of the behaviour in terms of adjusting priorities. Measures concerning eligibility have already been discussed. Priority and eligibility are different issues: one is about whether a person is accepted in the first place, and the other concerns his position on the list. I take the hon. Gentleman's points about the need for clear understanding of what is being considered, but that is more appropriately placed in guidance than in the Bill; if it were otherwise, as I pointed out, it would lead to a considerable amount of litigation about priority decisions, which should properly be taken by the local authority. I shall deal with the matter of symmetry a little later, and I shall try to be brief.

I apologise for pursuing the point—I am well aware the Committee is anxious to make progress—but will the Minister explain why the definition of the behaviour that would apply in respect of adjusting priority should be covered in guidance when the Government have already placed the definition of behaviour in respect of eligibility and the removing of priority in the Bill? It does not make sense. The Minister may say that adjusting priority is a totally different matter, but it is not. If people are put low on the priority list, they will not get accommodation. That has the same effect as removing their priority or deeming them to be non-eligible: it fundamentally affects their chances of getting accommodation.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's final point to an extent, but by accepting someone onto a homelessness list, the local authority will have judged that it has a responsibility to provide accommodation. That major decision has enormous implications. As the hon. Gentleman knows, regulations will be made shortly to widen the number of people to whom it will be available. The priority that the local authority may give that person is a quite different matter.

I accept that the issues are separate; deciding whether people should be put on a list is different from judging what priority they should be given. The Minister's argument takes her down a difficult route, because she will end up having to agree with me. The extreme version of adjusting priority would remove it altogether. Even if people were accepted as eligible, they would have no priority. That is provided for in new sections (2B) to (2D) of Clause 15 (3). In those circumstances--the extreme form of adjusting priority--one must say whether people's behaviour meets what is required under the Bill. The Minister's argument is leading her to agree with me that there is a gaping hole in the Bill.

If I may, I shall continue; the hon. Gentleman can return to the subject later if he still disagrees.

I understand the impulse to want clear standards to be set out in the Bill. However, I understand also the need to ensure that decisions are taken at the most appropriate level. Although decisions about putting people on the list, or even excluding them, requires knowledge of the details set out in the Bill, decisions about priority ordering are much better taken locally by the local authority or the landlord, because they have to consider all the elements in much more detail. As I said, if the Amendment were accepted, we would face the prospect of litigation on each of the words included in the Bill in order to move people up or down the priority list. That would probably benefit no one except the lawyers. The existing provision already strikes a fair and proper balance between the interests of applicants and of authorities and existing tenants with its reference to ``serious'' behaviour and unsuitability to be a tenant and by linking with the grounds of possession in schedule 2 of the 1985 Act.

The two tests, which are symmetrical and specify a high test of unacceptable behaviour, are included in provisions that have a serious penalty. The local authority can decide not to allocate at all or not to give any preference to the applicant. The third test simply allows a local authority to reduce priority to some degree, and that would have to be set out in the published allocation scheme so that it would be clear to those applying for accommodation. The local authority would also have to act reasonably. Its scheme could be subject to judicial review.

Making decisions about housing management and housing allocation is usually about dealing with square pegs and round holes. Many decisions have to be made carefully at local level. The safeguards in the Bill ensure that to attract no priority a person must have been guilty of sufficiently unacceptable behaviour to make him unsuitable to be a tenant and to entitle the authority to a possession order. Those safeguards protect people whose behaviour in the past has fallen short of the best, but was not intolerable.

The Clause strikes a balance by recognising that people can reform and that not all bad behaviour is the fault of the individual, and by respecting the right of the vast Majority of tenants and residents to quiet enjoyment of their lives. We have also struck a careful balance between what is required to be in the Bill and what is rightly a matter for local discretion. I therefore ask hon. Members to withdraw the amendment.

We think that the Clause should be more specific, but we are prepared to withdraw our Amendment on the assurance that previous behaviour will be taken more broadly into account.

Order. For the benefit of all members of the Committee, particularly new members, only the first Amendment in any group is formally moved at this stage, so there is no need to seek to withdraw other amendments. As Chairman, I always try to afford to those who have an interest in a group of amendments the opportunity to speak. Once the formal mover of the lead amendment is called to wind up, nobody else may speak.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is slightly confused as to why he was called to speak in the first place. I am sure that he was grateful to have made that brief contribution.

I have enormous respect for the Minister, but she has made a rather poor fist of dealing with this issue. It is clear that there is a gaping hole in the Bill. The Minister had an important opportunity to place on record the Government's current thinking on this matter. It is extremely confused thinking. She told us that local authorities will have to act reasonably and that that will be a big test. However, on Tuesday when I sought to insert the word ``reasonable'', I was told that it could not be used as no one would understand what it meant and it could not be tested. We were also told that decisions had to be made carefully by local authorities, and yet the whole point of changing the legislation is to give greater clarity to what the Government and the House believe would be an appropriate form of behaviour in the decision-making process by local authorities. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne and both Ministers have acknowledged, many local authorities do not operate in ways that they consider reasonable. They have blanket exclusion policies and large numbers of people not being given a reasonable degree of priority, even though they have been deemed to be eligible.

The Committee will be well aware of the survey carried out by the Government, which shows that 29 per cent. of local authorities have no policy on the level of rent arrears that can be taken into account and that that is left totally to the discretion of officers. I hope the Committee agrees that that is unacceptable. Despite the tough guidance given to local authorities, there have been all the cases to which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have referred.

The Minister seems to think that adjusting priority is not a significant issue, but it is and there should be a clearly defined behaviour test as there is for other aspects of the Bill. I do not know about her local authority area, but if someone wants accommodation in mine, they must not merely be somewhere on the priority list. If they do not have the maximum number of points and are not at the top of the list, they will not be allocated accommodation because so little is available. The question of priority is therefore vital, and a decision to adjust priority based on behaviour is significant for individuals. If there is no behaviour test, there is a gaping hole in the legislation.

I genuinely believe that the Government have not thought the issue through, so if I seek leave to withdraw the Amendment at this stage I may give Ministers and their advisers an opportunity to do so during the summer. In the hope that the hole in the Bill will be filled at a later stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 11, line 37, leave out

`has the right to request the authority to inform him'

and insert `is informed'.

I am afraid that there is another significant inconsistency in the legislation. As we are all well aware by now, when a homeless person applies to a local authority to be treated as homeless, it must take two decisions. The first is whether they are eligible. The legislation before us makes it clear that once a decision on eligibility has been taken, the local authority is responsible for telling the applicant what that decision is. If they do not like it, they have an opportunity to go through the review and appeal processes. On the test of eligibility, the local authority says, ``Don't call us, we'll call you. Don't clog up our switchboard asking if a decision has been made and if so what it is. Wait and we'll tell you what the decision is.''

Secondly, the local authority must determine priority, which we have just discussed. Clearly, the applicant needs to know what the decision is, but in this respect, bizarrely, the authority says, ``Don't wait for us to call you, because we're not going to call you in a hundred years. You must call us.'' The applicant must constantly telephone the local authority to find out whether a decision has been taken on their priority and if so what it is. The onus is placed entirely on the applicant, which makes no sense.

The local authority tells the applicant about the decision on eligibility, and they either accept it or go through the review and appeal processes. In respect of priority, however, the onus is on the applicant. That is clearly an oversight by the Government, and my amendment would ensure that the applicant was told about decisions on both eligibility and priority. I am sure that the Minister will see that that is common sense and give me the opportunity to send a postcard to Mrs. Foster.

The hon. Member for Bath will not have an opportunity to send Mrs. Foster a postcard this morning. [Interruption.] It was suggested from a sedentary position that the modern version is a text message, which the hon. Gentleman might consider.

The Amendment is not the elementary piece of common sense that the hon. Gentleman claimed. It would remove the onus from the individual to request information on any decision made by the authority and instead place it on authorities to inform all applicants of all the facts of their cases and of decisions taken on their suitability to be tenants. Although I appreciate the reasons behind the amendment, the Bill should, as has been said in previous debates, strike a fair balance between the rights of an individual and the need to ensure that schemes do not become unworkable.

There has been no oversight, and the Bill provides an important safeguard against poor administration by giving applicants the right to information about how their cases are being handled. In the real world, most applications dealt with by authorities are not contentious, and it would be a massive and unnecessary burden on authorities to require them to advise all applicants on case facts. The Bill provides for applicants to obtain information about how their case is being handled, which is adequate to ensure that applicants are not unreasonably refused accommodation. The amendment would place an extreme and unnecessary burden on authorities and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Mrs. Foster, whether it is through text message, postcard or any other form of communication, will certainly get one from me. [Laughter.] I sat here listening to the Minister and worked hard on that, and I am delighted to have given such pleasure to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham.

For the benefit of the Official Report, I should say that the communication to Mrs. Foster will express considerable disappointment in the Minister. He said that it is vital for local authorities to do unreasonable and difficult work to ensure that applicants know whether they have been deemed eligible. Bizarrely, he is not prepared to force them to do so on the question of priority. He assured me that I was wrong, it was not an oversight and the circumstances were different, but then proceeded to give no explanation.

The Committee will know that applicants deemed eligible for the list who then get a low priority rating do not get any accommodation. At both stages, applicants have the right to review and subsequently to appeal, and they will need all the case details to go through those processes. Local authorities will end up having to provide the details anyway, so it is bizarre that they are not required to inform the applicants about eligibility and priority. I fail to understand why the Government will not move on the issue. Clearly, we all need the summer break to reflect further on these matters, though Mrs. Foster and I will enjoy many other things over that period. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to think again, and so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

I am grateful for my first opportunity to speak about this important Bill. I endorse the Clause on the need to deal with anti-social behaviour and to support sustainable communities.

In my Aberavon Constituency, as elsewhere, there are many examples of anti-social behaviour. Its causes are many and varied. In my constituency—and particularly in communities such as Briton Ferry, Glyncorrwg and the Aberavon ward—the inconsiderate attitude and social irresponsibility of a minority of private landlords is a contributory factor to serial bad behaviour. Longstanding, proud and previously sustainable communities have been blighted and undermined. A greater sense of active and corporate citizenship is necessary and the clause will certainly help in that regard.

I am pleased that the Bill recognises the destructive nature of anti-social behaviour. Will the Minister give an assurance that every avenue will be explored and that by tackling anti-social behaviour and all its causes she will ensure that vulnerable communities are rebuilt into sustainable communities? The Bill is a major step in that direction and I am sure that the National Assembly for Wales will also take a leading role in dealing with these vital issues.

I should like to pick up the hon. Gentleman's point about sustainable communities and ask the Minister whether she agrees that the Bill would be more effective if Clause 15 had regard in its priorities to the sons and daughters scheme? Grandsons and granddaughters could also be added. Are not the sheer physical distances that separate families today partly responsible for the breakdown in sustainable communities? I am well aware of the need to monitor estates with a racial mix to ensure that certain groups do not congregate in less desirable areas. However, the Government's aim of building stronger communities could be reinforced by making the sons and daughters scheme one of the Bill's priorities.

As for child care, it is a huge asset if a mother, grandmother, sister or other relative lives close to parents, particularly when the children are very young. Will not the lack of closeness of the family network most hurt the poorest families and those least able to access childcare at their own expense?

Clause 15 is designed to revise frameworks for local authority letting schemes and it sets out matters that must be included in their allocation scheme. It also sets out revised reasonable preference categories and makes provision for authorities to give additional preference to certain groups with urgent housing needs. It confers new rights on applicants to obtain information and to ask for a review of certain decisions concerning their application.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) said, the clause deals with local housing authorities' role in combating anti-social behaviour. I agree with my hon. Friend that anti-social behaviour is particularly destructive in pockets where residents find it difficult to move elsewhere because of the generally low demand for housing in those areas. I recognise that that is a significant problem in my hon. Friend's Constituency. Unfortunately, his constituents are not alone, because other people living in English constituencies share their experiences. There is no simple way to enforce good behaviour on seriously anti-social individuals, whether tenants or landlords. The problems must be addressed by a range of agencies, including housing providers, social services, education authorities and the police. It might be necessary to provide support to victims and, on occasion, to perpetrators.

In England, we will develop proposals for consultation on selective licensing of private landlords in low-demand areas. The aim is to provide local authorities with the power to deal with private landlords who house anti-social tenants but who do not control their behaviour. We hope to consult on those proposals later in the year. In the case of Wales, such matters are devolved to the Welsh Assembly, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon will liaise closely with them. I do not pretend that our proposals for new powers will provide a complete answer, but they and the Bill will add to the range of instruments that authorities have at their disposal.

We are also committed to the introduction of licensing for houses in multiple occupation as soon as parliamentary time allows. Local authorities and police can, of course, take out anti-social behaviour orders against anyone who causes a nuisance, including tenants and landlords in the private sector. That is a difficult problem for which there are no simple solutions and it must also be addressed by a range of agencies, including housing providers, social services, education authorities and the police. However, I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments about the problems in his constituency.

In relation to the points made by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Mr. Selous), new subsection (2E)(b) contains a provision for local authorities to take account of local connections in the allocation of housing

``to persons of a particular description (whether or not they are within subsection (2)).''

In new subsection (2A)(c), there is also a provision for ``any local connection''.

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the problem of monitoring and the impact on the ethnic profile of particular estates, because that has been a massive issue in some areas. Obviously, the different pressures must be balanced with great care. We all understand the strong urge that people have to be close to family members, particularly if caring responsibilities are involved. However, other issues must be considered as well. It must be handled carefully, and I am extremely pleased that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that.

In conclusion, clause 15 contains an important reform of the statutory framework for local housing authority allocation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 16 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.