DEFERRED ACTION NOTICES (Hansard, 8 July 1996)

§ Mr. Chris Davies
I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 47, line 42, at end insert— '(6) A local housing authority shall not serve a deferred notice action notice in respect of a dwelling—house or house in multiple occupation which is occupied by one or more households containing a child under the age of 16.'. The introduction of deferred action notices is one of the most disreputable provisions of the Bill. They provide a legitimate means for the local authority to avoid all its responsibilities towards the improvement of unfit properties and they take away the moral pressure that should be felt by councillors and Ministers. Nothing will be done, and no one will be held responsible either legally or politically. Local authorities will have been provided with the legal step of issuing a deferred action notice and, once that is done, they need look no more at the problem on their doorstep. These notices can be renewed annually and action can be postponed indefinitely. Frankly, it is a disgrace.
The amendment seeks to mitigate the harm caused by the proposal by saying that the need for remedial action shall not simply be swept beneath the carpet and hidden from view in each and every case. Where properties are inhabited by children under the age of 16, deferred action notices of this kind should not be issued. The responsibility for dealing with the problem should not be ignored by local authorities and by Ministers.

§ Mr. Clappison
A local authority, when deciding whether to serve a deferred action notice, should have regard to all the relevant circumstances, including the interests of the occupants. We believe that the way in which we have approached this involves a degree of flexibility, and that the hon. Gentleman's amendment would cut across the flexibility that we regard as important.
I point out to the hon. Gentleman that clause 81 follows closely the standard terminology used for the exercise of the existing fitness enforcement options of repair, closure and clearance. We consider it important to retain such consistency. In particular, an important principle of fitness enforcement is that of a local authority having to satisfy itself that taking a particular enforcement option represents the most satisfactory course of action. That principle is enshrined in clause 81
67 The most satisfactory course of action is a broad term, the purpose of which is to enable a local authority to take into account all the relevant circumstances. It is not simply a bricks and mortar consideration. The occupants—be they households with or without children—will be an important consideration. I would be concerned if local authorities were restricted in the way sought by amendment No. 3.
Under clause 85, provision is made for the Secretary of State to give guidance on the most satisfactory course of action in connection with the service of deferred action notices. I have made clear on more than one occasion that we fully intend to issue such guidance. Furthermore, by virtue of the terms of clause 85, local authorities will be required to have regard to the guidance.
Before its issue, the guidance will be subject to the usual consultation with local authority associations and others. That will help to ensure that it is balanced and appropriate and that it provides local authorities with the leeway that they need, given the many varied circumstances that they inevitably encounter in the course of their enforcement activities. The approach has the advantage of being consistent with the other fitness enforcement options, which is important. It allows also for a degree of flexibility that is essential in all areas of fitness enforcement, but local authorities must exercise that flexibility sensibly having regard to clear guidance from the Secretary of State. In those circumstances, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

§ Mr. Davies
There is no greater flexibility than giving local authorities the option of opting out of their responsibilities entirely—which is what the Bill is all about. The Minister speaks warm words and seeks to provide reassurance. However, he does not go far enough and I do not wish to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Raynsford
I beg to move amendment No. 110, in page 47, line 42, at end insert— `(6) Where a local housing authority has served a deferred action notice, they shall consider the provision of appropriate professional, technical and administrative services, as provided under section 169 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to the person on whom the notice has been served. (7) Local housing authorities shall have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State with regard to action under (6) above.'. With this amendment, we offer a positive proposal to mitigate the effects of the deferred action notice. As the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) pointed out, the deferred action notice is an unsatisfactory feature of the Bill—it is, in effect, a counsel of despair. Under the deferred action notice, the local authority will say to the individual, "We have inspected your house and it is unfit for human habitation, but we don't intend to do anything about it". That is clearly an entirely unsatisfactory and inadequate response to poor housing conditions.
Amendment No. 110 seeks to provide an alternative option, which can help in certain cases, to ensure that something is done. It does not seek to reverse the process—we have argued that point and we do not agree 68 with the Government. In this amendment, we seek simply to mitigate some of the worst consequences of the legislation as drafted. Amendment No. 110 states: Where a local authority has served a deferred action notice, it shall consider providing appropriate professional. technical and administrative services … to the person on whom the notice has been served. In other words, local authorities shall provide advice and assistance to help people learn what can be done to remedy the problem. There are excellent staying-put projects in many areas—they are sometimes called by different names—that are designed to assist people living in bad housing conditions. They identify renovation options and assist people in going through the process— for example, they provide assistance in applying for grants where they are available and in dealing with builders. They enable people to obtain the technical help and support that they need in order to have their homes improved.
Referral to one such agency—whether they are called care and repair or home repair agencies—and assistance from that source could be the solution for many people. It is much more positive than simply serving a deferred action notice. During the Committee's consideration, the Minister spoke some warm words. He said that he was sympathetic to our argument. On 11 June he said that he had "some sympathy" with the intention behind the amendment that we moved at that stage. He said that he would be happy to consider including in the guidance that we shall issue encouragement to authorities to consider the desirability of using their powers … to make available the sort of assistance envisaged."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 11 June 1996; c. 235] We are pleased to hear that and our amendment is designed to give effect to the Minister's comments. The first subsection says that it is appropriate for the authority to consider providing such services and the second subsection says that the local authority shall have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State". We are once again giving effect to the Minister's words and we hope—perhaps it is an unreasonable expectation—that he will want to see the provisions that he advocated in Committee on the face of the Bill. I fear that he will disappoint us, but I live in hope. The amendment has a great deal to commend it.

§ Mr. Clappison
The hon. Member for Greenwich said that in earlier exchanges we recognised that it might be desirable for local authorities to consider making available, through their powers under section 169, the assistance that is envisaged under amendment No. 110. I am afraid that I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman a bit, because we differ about the need to impose it as a duty upon local authorities. Considering whether to make available such assistance should properly be a matter for each local authority to decide in the light of what are inevitably varied circumstances in each case.
Some circumstances might point to the desirability of making available the assistance envisaged. However, there might be circumstances in which it would inappropriate for a local authority to spend time and resources considering whether to make assistance available. The key point is that local authorities will be best placed to make such judgments. We do not believe that they will be helped in that process by being placed under the duties that amendment No. 110 would impose.

§ Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Does the Minister accept that the amendment places no obligation on local authorities other than to consider whether help should be given? It does not force local authorities to provide any assistance: it merely states that they should go through the process of considering whether assistance is appropriate. Surely that is not too much to ask when someone is living in an unfit property and cannot afford to improve it.

§ Mr. Clappison
I have just covered exactly that point. I described how it could be onerous to require local authorities to consider the matter in each case. I dealt with that point and I hope that the hon. Gentleman was listening.
I have already given an undertaking that our guidance to local authorities about the new private sector renewal regime will encourage them to consider the desirability of using their section 169 powers to provide assistance of the sort envisaged when serving a deferred action notice. That guidance will be subject to consultation with local authority associations and others. That will help to ensure that a sensible balance is achieved. I do not believe that we should shackle authorities unnecessarily by going further than that. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Raynsford
The Minister anticipates our disappointment. He once again finds it difficult to agree in the House to a formulation that is based on his comments in Committee. We believe that it is appropriate for Government to encourage care and repair agencies and the amendment would assist that process in a positive way without burdening local authorities unduly. It is a modest amendment that is designed to ease a thoroughly undesirable and retrograde measure: the introduction of deferred action notices. We regret that the Government have responded in such a negative manner but, in order to make progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.