§ Mr. RaynsfordI beg to move amendment No. 104, in page 15, line 38, at end insert—
`(k) to comply with the requirements of a registration scheme made by a local housing authority under section 346 of the Housing Act 1985 (as amended by section 64 of the Housing Act 1996).'.The amendment would make facilitating compliance with a local authority registration scheme an explicit purpose of multi-occupation grant. Every hon. Member is aware of the extent of problems with multi-occupied properties. As I have already said, there are concentrations of poor and, in many cases, life-threatening conditions in such properties. There is an urgent need for action to 46 improve conditions and, during our debates on the Housing Bill, we stressed the importance of more effective measures to deal with multi-occupied houses.The Opposition believe that there is a case for a mandatory national licensing scheme which would apply in all areas and ensure more effective action. Regrettably, the Government do not accept that, and have opted for a more limited registration scheme. Although it is more limited, however, the scheme at least provides options for local authorities that choose to use it—the latter is an important issue—and they will be able to take action against properties in poor condition and try to ensure that the conditions are improved.
5 pm
In certain circumstances, the use of grant aid is an important tool in bringing such properties into good condition. Telling a landlord that the condition of his property is unacceptable is easier if one can also say, "If you apply for a grant, we may be able to assist you with the necessary renovation work." The scheme for grants for multi-occupied houses provides for such financial assistance in appropriate cases. That is all well and good, but what is extraordinary is that, in a long list in the Bill setting out what purposes can be served by grants for multi-occupied houses, action to facilitate compliance with the local authority registration scheme is not mentioned.
The amendment would put that oversight right. I cannot believe that it is anything other than an oversight, or that it is Government policy not to support registration schemes when they have argued all year that they are the most effective way in which to deal with multi-occupied houses. If they believe that, surely they should give their beliefs full effect and accept this modest amendment, which simply reinforces the fact that the grants can be usefully employed to ensure compliance with the registration scheme.
§ Mr. ClappisonThere is some common ground between us on this issue, but I do not find it extraordinary or such an obvious case of oversight that we have approached it in the way that we have rather than through the inclusion of registration of houses in multiple occupation as one of the criteria in the Bill—as the hon. Gentleman would. As he said, the Bill sets out a long list and it would provide for any physical requirement necessary to bring a house in multiple occupation up to a fit standard for registration. The addition of a scheme-related purpose to a list covering specific types of work would not be appropriate in any case.
It seems sensible for a local authority to have regard to the requirements of its registration scheme when considering an application for grant for a house in multiple occupation. A link between the requirements for registration and consideration of a grant application would be more appropriately provided for in the guidance that the Department will be issuing to local authorities on the implementation of the new legislation, and I shall ensure that the issue is fully covered.
§ Mr. RaynsfordBeing tossed a few crumbs when the Government choose not to accept an amendment is always welcome. The offer of a reference in guidance is at least a step in the right direction, so we will not press the 47 amendment any further. I trust that the guidance will correctly emphasise the importance of taking into account a local authority registration scheme.
§ Amendment negatived.