Group 17 is on management control orders and the failure to comply with notice. Amendment 111, in the name of the Minister, is grouped with amendment 112.

This group of amendments deals with management control orders. Such orders can be made by the court on application by the local authority, where a landlord does not comply with the requirements in an antisocial behaviour notice. Amendment 111 will ensure beyond doubt that the management control order applies even where the original tenancy ends and the landlord lets to a new tenant. A management control order is obtained because the landlord is not managing a particular antisocial behaviour problem. If the tenant leaves, the problem may be resolved or it may be repeated with the new tenant. The management control order should therefore continue on a change of tenancy. The landlord is always free to apply to have the control order revoked on the grounds that he or she has taken the action required in the notice or that it is no longer reasonable for the notice to be in place.

Amendment 112 will ensure that the local authority can recover any money that has been paid to the landlord that should have been paid to the local authority because a management control order was in place. It does not matter whether the payments were made to the landlord by coercion or simply by mistake.

I move amendment 111.

The Minister said quite correctly that there would come a point in the debate where there would be deep philosophical differences between us. This is as good a point as any at which to underline that. The provisions to which this group of amendments refer are a classic illustration of the Executive going over the top on private landlords and seeking to have them do what Government agencies should be doing—namely, policing the control of their premises.

We are all aware that just as there are very good landlords, there are very bad landlords. It is surely the ultimate irony that under Amendment 111 the minister seeks to transfer the rights and obligations of the private landlord to the local authority. The painful experience of most of us who have been councillors tends to suggest that one of the principal difficulties that arises in the public sector, particularly in local-authority housing, is the fact that local authorities sometimes do not control the way in which their houses are occupied to the extent that they should. It is a bit rich for the minister to seek to pass control of the errant private landlords' property to the councils, which have failed manifestly in many respects to cope with their own properties.

The basic tenet of the Executive's thinking is that a landlord can control his premises. Of course, any sensible landlord will take every possible measure to ensure that those people to whom any house is let are likely to behave in a reasoned and reasonable manner. However, sometimes even where landlords show due diligence in leasing premises, the property is occupied by those whose conduct is objectionable to neighbours. Mary Scanlon raised that point with regard to holiday accommodation. I have to ask the Executive whether it is reasonable to penalise the landlord if it transpires that his tenants are not behaving in a reasonable manner, despite the fact that he has taken all proper precautions to ensure that his tenants are reasonable and are not likely to cause concern to the neighbours. After all, the landlord has done everything reasonable to ensure that he has leased the flat on the basis of reasonable inquiries.

Does Bill Aitken agree that there are also landlords who do not take responsibility in that way? Sometimes we cannot find them to make them responsible and if we make contact with them we are subject to abuse. The point that we are addressing is that although not all landlords are like that, some are. The measures that we are talking about will protect good landlords and hunt down those who are not interested in providing any service to anybody in their community.

I concede that some landlords would meet the criteria that Johann Lamont is describing. However, they are in the minority. It is clear that any sensible landlord is not likely to be so neglectful—

rose—

Let me finish this point.

Do be mindful of the clock, Mr Aitken.

On that basis, I cannot let Johann Lamont in. Perhaps I will do so later.

Landlords are not going to run their properties in a manner that is likely to result in their losing money. The bottom line is that the police are the people who should be acting. Once again the Executive, with the tremendous control-freak approach that it takes to practically everything in life, is trying to get other people to do its job and ensure that it is firmly in control; that is not the answer.

The ideological debate might come in the next groups; I am looking forward to it. I reassure Bill Aitken that if the landlord has taken all reasonable steps, the order can be revoked, so what we are doing is proportionate and appropriate.

The question is, that Amendment 111 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a Division.

Division number 16

For: Adam, Brian, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Fox, Colin, Gibson, Rob, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Harvie, Patrick, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kane, Rosie, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Leckie, Carolyn, Lochhead, Richard, Lyon, George, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macdonald, Lewis, MacDonald, Margo, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McFee, Mr Bruce, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morgan, Alasdair, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Neil, Alex, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robison, Shona, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mike, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, Tavish, Sheridan, Tommy, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stevenson, Stewart, Stone, Mr Jamie, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinburne, John, Turner, Dr Jean, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Aitken, Bill, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Fergusson, Alex, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Johnstone, Alex, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Mundell, David, Scanlon, Mary

The result of the Division is: For 99, Against 15, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 111 agreed to.

I advise members that, according to our timetable, we have 10 minutes left in this part of our consideration of amendments and that we have a substantial number of votes to process. As there might be no time for debate on any of the amendments and I will be holding 30-second divisions, I request that members remain in the chamber.

Amendments 112 to 118, in the name of the Minister, have all been previously debated. Unless any member objects, I invite the minister to move them en bloc.

Amendment 112 moved—[Ms Margaret Curran].