SERVICE OF DEFERRED ACTION NOTICES. (Hansard, 8 July 1996)

§ Mr. Clappison
I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 48, line 12, at end insert `—(a)'.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 51.

§ Mr. Clappison
Clause 82(4) requires a local authority to serve a copy of a deferred action notice on any person who has an interest in the premises concerned, whether as a freeholder, mortgagee or lessee. I undertook in Committee to consider whether that requirement should apply also to tenants and licensees.
I can confirm that the provisions in clause 82(4) already cover tenants—they are embraced by the terms of the Housing Act 1985. On the question of licensees, we think that it would impose an unreasonable burden on local authorities to require them to serve a copy of a deferred action notice on licensees. They do not have an interest 70 in land—technically, many visitors to a property can be licensees. It would obviously not be sensible, and local authorities could face difficulties if they were required to serve a copy of a notice on such people.
Therefore, we think that a sensible balance in the case of licensees is for local authorities to have the power to serve a copy of a notice rather than be placed under a duty to do so. On the basis of that sensible proposal, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich will accept the amendment.

§ Mr. Raynsford
The Minister will recall that when we considered an earlier group of amendments, including amendment No. 19, I highlighted the fact that the Government thought it right at that stage to put on the face of the Bill an amendment that said that references to a "tenancy" should include the grant of a licence. In other words, in that context, licensees are treated in the same way as tenants. I gave the Minister advance notice that I would ask him why the same principle does not apply to amendments Nos. 50 and 51.
Many licensees live in dangerous, substandard accommodation, and if despite their properties being unfit, the local authority intends to do nothing about them, it is only reasonable that they should be formally notified of the fact rather being left in the lurch. The fact that the properties that licensees occupy are death traps is of as much concern to them as it is to tenants. The right to notification should apply in all cases to licensees as well as to tenants. Ruling rule out licensees because they do not have a property interest shows a wrong sense of priorities.

§ Mr. Clappison
I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about this. The earlier circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman referred concerned eligibility to apply for grants. In such cases, the identities of the people applying for grants are known, whether they are tenants or licensees. The problem in this case is the practicability of requiring local authorities to serve notices on licensees which, as I have already described, can involve a wide range of people in relation to the property. That would put a burden on local authorities.

§ Mr. Raynsford
The Minister does not respond to the crucial point that licensees who live in substandard accommodation in which their lives are at risk because of defective fire precautions or gas appliances have every right to be treated on a par with tenants in the same position. To discriminate between them on the basis that tenants have a technical financial interest in the property is an appalling failure to give proper priority to individual lives and public health considerations. We greatly regret the Government's failure to look after the interests of licensees in the same way that they are prepared to look after the interests of other people. This matter will need to be addressed again.