Housing Bill

HL Deb 11 June 1996 vol 572 cc1654-706

House again in Committee on Schedule 3.

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 186: Page 136, line 38, at end insert— (". In section 75(1) of the Housing Associations Act 1985 (general functions of the Corporation) for paragraphs (a) to (c) substitute—

1. "(a) to facilitate the proper performance of the functions of registered social landlords;
2. (b) to maintain a register of social landlords and to exercise supervision and control over such persons;
3. (c) to promote and assist the development of self-build societies (other than registered social landlords) and to facilitate the proper performance of the functions, and to publicise the aims and principles, of such societies;".").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 187.

As a consequence of the proposed introduction of new social landlords in Part I of the Bill, we have been considering whether the Housing Corporation's general functions need to be amended. In particular, we have been looking at its statutory duty under Sections 75 and 87 of the Housing Associations Act 1985, to promote, and provide financial assistance for, the development of registered associations.

Since promotional duties were first given to the corporation in 1974, the housing association sector has grown and matured. The promotion of associations to private lenders was important during the introduction of private finance because the housing association sector was largely unknown to private lenders. Now, however, associations are able to promote themselves, either individually or collectively, or may seek assistance from financial intermediaries to promote housing associations to lenders.

Given these changes, we are proposing that the corporation's activities be refocused so that they encourage the efficient and effective use of housing resources through continued promotion of good practice based on findings from the research programme and value for money scrutinies and refocusing their promotion and advisory grant programme to improve service outcomes rather than support any particular provider group.

To achieve this, we propose modifying the corporation's powers so that they can facilitate the proper performance of the functions of social landlords. We also propose (in Amendment No. 187) that the corporation has powers to provide financial assistance to achieve this new function.

We appreciate that self-build societies are not comparable to registered social landlords. Because of their smaller size and limited scale of operations we propose that the corporation should continue to have a power to promote and assist in the development of such societies.

We also propose that one of the corporation's general functions should be to maintain a register of registered social landlords. This replaces the corporation's current responsibilities for maintaining a register of registered housing associations. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Elvel

The Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord for introducing these two amendments. I have one or two questions. In the phrase, facilitate the proper performance of the functions", what does "facilitate" mean in law? Does it mean that the corporation is simply standing by, or does it mean that it has an active role beyond the role that it is granted in the Bill as presently drafted?

My second question relates to, financial assistance to any person to facilitate". Will the Minister explain what sort of person that might be?

Lord Lucas

I am sorry, but just for the moment I do not see the second item to which the noble Lord refers.

Lord Williams of Elvel

I refer to Amendment No. 187: The Corporation may give financial assistance to any person to facilitate". My question is: what sort of person might that be? If it is Lord Hanson—

Lord Lucas

I did not wish to leap up before the noble Lord was ready. I did so merely to admit that he has asked two interesting questions to which I do not have interesting answers. If the noble Lord will allow me, I shall write to him with answers to both questions raised. In my understanding, "facilitate" is no more than a posh way of expressing "help" with such matters as general guidance and assistance. As to who might be contemplated to be paid to give such general guidance and assistance, I shall have to write to the noble Lord. I do not have an answer.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 187: Page 136, line 49, at end insert— (". In section 87 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 (financial assistance for formation, management, &c. of housing associations), for subsection (1) substitute— (1) The Corporation may give financial assistance to any person to facilitate the proper performance of the functions of registered social landlords or co-operative housing associations."."). On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 188: Page 137, line 35, at end insert— (". In section 79(2) of the Housing Act 1988 (permitted disposals of land by housing action trusts) for paragraph (a) and the word "or" at the end of the paragraph substitute— (a) to a registered social landlord (within the meaning of Part I of the Housing Act 1996), or".").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 273.

These amendments are stimulated by the introduction of registered social landlords. First, they amend Section 79(2) of the Housing Act 1988; secondly, they repeal Section 79(6) to Section 79(10) of that Act; and finally, they make minor amendments to Section 92 of that Act as a consequence of the other amendments.

Sections 79 to 92 of the 1988 Act deal with housing action trusts. They established the arrangements under which such trusts can dispose of land, including of course dwellings, to another landlord. Section 79(2) of the 1988 Act provides that disposal of houses subject to secure tenancies can be to a person approved by the corporation, or to a local housing authority or other local authority. Section 79(6) and 79(10) make provision in respect of the approval of such a person by the corporation.

The introduction of the new registration procedures for social landlords, and the approval that registration implies, means that it is no longer desirable or necessary to continue with a parallel approval mechanism for housing action trust disposals. No person who is not a registered social landlord would be an approved person for these purposes. But there is no point in requiring a registered social landlord to go through a quite separate approval process in order to become the recipient of housing action trust stock. It is sufficient to rely on its registration as a social landlord.

Amendment No. 188 therefore substitutes for the requirement that a transferee landlord which is not a local authority must be a person approved for the purpose by the corporation under Section 79 the requirement that it is a registered social landlord within the meaning of Part I of this Bill.

Amendment No. 273 repeals Section 79(6) to Section 79(10) of the 1988 Act, which govern the approval processes. It also makes a minor amendment to Section 92, to repeal that part of the definition of 'Corporation' relating to such approval. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Elvel

It all sounds very reasonable. However, the noble Lord read his brief rather fast. I shall have to study the matter in Hansard with my advisers and decide whether we wish to challenge the noble Lord's view on Report.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 55 and 56 agreed to.

Clause 57 [Definitions relating to charities]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No.189: Page 33, line 4, leave out ("has") and insert ("and "trusts", in relation to a charity, have").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 143. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 58 to 61 agreed to.

Clause 62 [Minor definitions: Part I]:

[Amendments Nos. 190 and 191 not moved.]

Clause 62 agreed to.

Clause 63 [Index of defined expressions: Part I]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 192 and 193: Page 36, line 3, at end insert— ("enactment section 202") Page 36, line 33, at end insert— ("trusts (in relation to a charity) section 57(1)(a)")

The noble Lord said: I shall move Amendments Nos. 192 and 193 en bloc. I spoke to Amendment No. 192 with Amendment No. 120 and to Amendment No. 193 with Amendment No. 143. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.

8.45 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 194: Before Clause 64, insert the following new clause— POWER TO PROVIDE FOR MANDATORY LICENSING SCHEME C.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide that for the provisions of sections 64 to 69 (registration schemes) there shall be substituted a national mandatory licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation. (2) Before making an order under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall consult local housing authorities and other relevant organisations. (3) Any order under subsection (1) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.").

The noble Baroness said: With this amendment we move to the part of the Bill concerned with houses in multiple occupation. This new clause proposes a strengthening of the provisions in this part by providing for a national mandatory licensing scheme as distinct from the registration scheme for which the Bill provides, on the basis of a reserved power given to the Secretary of State to bring in such a scheme.

Clauses 64 to 69 of the Bill, replacing certain parts of the 1985 Housing Act, will leave to the discretion of local authorities whether or not they have an HMO registration scheme, whether the scheme adopted is to cover the whole or only part of their area and whether it is to provide tenants of all or only some HMOs with the protection of registration. In addition, the Secretary of State is likely to use his powers when drawing up model registration schemes under the new Section 346B(1) to exclude from registrability at least half of the houses in multiple occupation in the country.

I normally argue for local discretion. It is a measure of the importance of the provisions concerning houses in multiple occupation that, on this occasion, I argue for a national scheme. Safety is not discretionary.

The Committee will be aware of tragedies that have occurred in houses in multiple occupation which, sadly, it appears are less safe even than other houses and units of accommodation in the private rented sector. I say "even" than those because, in general, it is a sector in which there are many problems. I recall some months ago hearing a programme on the radio about unsafe gas boilers and the series of tragedies which had befallen tenants, often young tenants who had been overcome by carbon monoxide poisoning in circumstances which hardly bear repetition. I recall the case of two brothers who died together. Recently, there was the first trial of a landlord, who was found guilty of manslaughter, I believe, as a result of the condition in which he kept a house, leading to the case of a 19 year-old student who was gassed by a defective appliance in her bedsit. As I said, safety should not be discretionary.

The Department of the Environment estimates that there were some 638,000 households of multiple occupation of various types in England last year. One fifth of private rented lettings are unfit for human habitation. The figure is two fifths in this sector. The figure comes from the English House Condition Survey. The risk of death from fire is 28 times higher in HMOs than in the housing stock as a whole and that figure comes from research by the Campaign for Bedsit Rights, supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The highest proportion of deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning caused by faulty and unserviced domestic gas appliances in the home occurs in private rented accommodation.

If the private rented sector, including HMOs, is to play the role that the Government want, there must be an effective framework to encourage long-term investment and good quality and professional management and to provide consumers with safety, security and affordability. Landlords and investors need a framework which regulates standards in ways which are predictable, stable and avoid unnecessary and needless bureaucracy. It would encourage responsible landlords and investors and drive the unscrupulous out of the market so far as that is possible.

Local authorities also need a clear and efficient legal framework for enforcing standards and for placing responsibility on landlords to tackle substandard conditions. Above all, existing and prospective tenants of HMOs must be given real guarantees that their homes will be made safe and healthy as soon as possible.

There is widespread support for a national mandatory licensing scheme. In 1994–95, the DoE published a consultation paper on licensing and 76 per cent. of the respondents favoured a new system of licensing. Among local authority respondents, that figure was over 90 per cent. The current regulatory framework is regarded as ripe for replacement, for a number of reasons. It is complex and confusing. I understand that one local authority, Birmingham, has listed 17 different Acts of Parliament and regulations which seek to control conditions in the private rented sector. Inevitably, there are different policies and enforcement practices employed by different local authorities. It is difficult for landlords and tenants to know the standards which are regarded as acceptable. If landlords find the law to be arbitrary, it can be no incentive for them to raise the standards. Tenants are not tenants whose voices can be made to be heard loudly and clearly. In this sector, the tenants are, by definition, those with the least means and, probably, therefore, those with the least will to complain because they fear for their security of tenure as a separate matter from their safety.

The system is inherently inefficient because it depends on tenants making a complaint or on the local authority tracking down every individual substandard property, and that is not easy. As I indicated, the risk of harassment and eviction on the part of a tenant who does complain cannot be underestimated.

Though this may seem a rather petty matter after the plea that I have made, it is worth noting that there are no financial incentives inherent in the current system and that a system which generates income is worth considering because the income that it generates can be used to improve the whole system.

The Government appear to be in favour of a national licensing scheme, according to various comments made in the consultation paper that I mentioned. It argued that it would secure high standards throughout the sector, focus on the types of housing with the worst problems and ensure a more consistent approach. But the Government argue against those points on three bases.

First, they say that powers are already available to local authorities. But, in bringing forward new provisions in the Bill, the Government recognise that the current powers are inadequate. Secondly, they argue that excessive bureaucracy would be created. I believe that varied schemes as between authority and authority in themselves create more bureaucracy. Thirdly, they argue that raising standards to an unrealistically high level would mean that landlords may withdraw accommodation from the market. I understand the point in regard to ensuring that accommodation remains available, but it must meet certain standards of safety and decency.

The licensing regime which I propose is supported by a wide range of organisations in the voluntary and statutory sectors. The scheme is believed to be one—here I rely on the views of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation—that could pay for itself after five years. I have said that safety should not be discretionary. A fit place to live should not be discretionary and licensing should not be discretionary either. I beg to move.

Lord Dubs

I support Amendment No. 194. The background is that in many of our inner city areas at least there are people who are badly off and facing extremely difficult housing circumstances. It is often difficult for them to find accommodation. Therefore the laws of the market place do not apply. For many years we have had government intervention to provide some measure of protection for people who cannot compete in the market for homes. Among the people who are less well off are those who have to accept accommodation in houses in multiple occupation.

The history of government legislation to give some measure of protection is a long but not a happy one in that we are constantly made aware of the difficulties and inadequacies in the framework which should provide protection for people living in that type of accommodation. The aim should be twofold. First, to provide adequate protection for tenants so that they can live in reasonable safety; and, secondly, to devise a method of doing that which provides maximum encouragement for good landlords and maximum discouragement for bad landlords. Indeed, some of the arguments for better regulation in this area are precisely that the good landlord will welcome it and it is only the bad landlords who will object because they will be caught out or found out.

Under the government scheme in the Bill it is up to each local authority to decide whether or not to introduce a licensing scheme at all. But that is rather random. With the best will in the world local authorities may not get round to it; they may have their own motives for not wishing to be tough in the licensing area. Indeed, the Government's illustrative examples, as given in the standing committee in the other place, suggest that, if a local authority decides to adopt these measures, the Government will help with the scheme but that it will be limited in its scope and exclude a number of houses in multiple occupation. If I am wrong in my assessment of what was said in the other place, I am happy to be corrected.

Having said that, this is a limited amendment. All that it asks the Government to do is accept a provision which would give the Secretary of State a reserve power to bring in a national mandatory licensing scheme. It does not oblige the Secretary of State to do so; it merely gives him the power to do so if at some time in the future he feels it is appropriate.

That is not imposing anything; it is saying that, given the sorry history of legislation in this area and the inadequacy of repeated attempts to do it properly, why not, while we are dealing with the Bill, include a reserve power so that if, even with the best will in the world— being generous to the Government—the provisions in the Bill do not work, the Secretary of State can take the reserve powers so that it can be done better?

Lord Gisborough

HMOs play an important role in the provision of housing in the private rented sector. According to latest government figures, HMOs house just over 3 million people in England—around 7 per cent. of the population. They clearly have an important role in providing affordable accommodation in a form that is likely to suit a large proportion of people at some point in their lives—students, young people at the start of their careers, single people and so forth. We must be conscious of the fact, therefore, that if we introduce inappropriate or draconian legislation in this area, responsible landlords may, probably will and already do, sell their properties and leave the market, thus creating even more homeless, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, feared.

To introduce overly onerous regulations, the cost of which would have to be borne by the landlord, would jeopardise the supply of an important source of accommodation from both current and future landlords, thereby ultimately damaging the interests of those it seeks to protect.

Statistics were cited regarding the relative fire risk in HMOs. Some Members in both Houses have suggested that there is a 28-times greater risk of dying in a fire in an HMO than in other types of dwelling. That figure is based on research carried out on behalf of the Campaign for Bedsit Rights. While not wishing to play down the risk of fires in HMOs, the Campaign for Bedsit Rights' figures merit some examination.

If we are to ensure that HMO regulation is appropriate, we must correctly understand the size of the problem. The campaign's figures do not stand up to much critical analysis when one examines the various government figures. If one looks at the government figures for the proportion of the population housed in HMOs, we get a figure of approximately 7 per cent., as I mentioned earlier. Home Office fire statistics, on the other hand, indicate that 12.5 per cent. of domestic house fires occur in HMOs. That is a high figure and the Government are right to take action to improve standards in HMOs. However, if we do the calculations, the risk of fire in HMOs using the Government's statistics is less than double the risk in other dwellings and falls well short of the "28-times" figure given by the Campaign for Bedsit Rights.

That is supported by other Home Office fire statistics, which suggest that 6.2 per cent. of HMO residents experienced a fire in 1993 as against 3.9 per cent. for the population as a whole. Statistics can be used to prove any point but the campaign figure seems to be particularly inaccurate and overstates the problem. We should not use it, therefore, as a basis for legislation. Ideally, the Government would have carried out research of their own to determine the exact nature of the risk posed by HMOs before deciding to legislate. That did not happen. I urge the Government to consider commissioning some research before drafting the secondary legislation.

I believe that the Government's action is therefore proportionate to the risk and I am pleased that they resist the pressure for a mandatory national licensing scheme. A full-scale licensing scheme would have been costly and over-bureaucratic and would have involved local authorities without HMO problems in unnecessary regulation. It would also, I understand, have covered all types of HMOs, and we would therefore have found ourselves in the position of regulating, among others, owner occupiers in self-contained blocks of flats. Surely that is not necessary.

Licensing is unnecessary, especially when one considers that there is already a large body of legislation to enforce good standards in let property. This includes the wide-ranging powers which already exist under the Housing Act 1985, where local authorities can require work to a property, carry out the work themselves in the landlord's default, or ultimately make an order that the property should come under local authority control or be closed down. Legislation also exists relating to fire and gas safety and the use of fire retardant fillings in furniture.

Some have suggested that the way to improve standards in HMOs is to amend the definition of an HMO, taking out self-contained flats and shared houses, so that the regulation could be concentrated on the properties that are likely to cause the most problems. The Government did not accept this suggestion either. Instead they have proposed that the current ad hoc registration scheme system should be formalised with a model scheme drawn up. I broadly support that proposal. It will mean that those local authorities that consider they have a particular problem with HMOs will be able to set up a registration scheme to give them greater control powers. The proposal that a model registration scheme is to be drawn up is also welcome. Landlords' current experience of registration schemes is that they vary widely between authorities, leading to much uncertainty among landlords as to their responsibilities. The Government are proposing that certain categories of HMOs will be exempt from the model registration scheme. Again, that is welcome and will ensure that local authority resources are targeted at those properties that cause most problems.

My amendments to come are intended to ensure that the relationship between landlord and local authority is an effective one, and that they work together to improve standards in their area. Most landlords are happy to make sensible achievable alterations to their properties and wish to encourage good tenants with good standards. In recent years, however, many private landlords have found the requirements made of them by local authorities to be unnecessary, and the mechanism for changing them has involved expensive litigation. My amendments seek to redress this imbalance, which, I should add, licensing would have accentuated. I hope that this amendment for the mandatory licensing scheme will be resisted as it would amount to over-regulation and unnecessary red tape.

9 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester

I support this amendment, even though I hate over-regulation and bureaucracy. Nevertheless, recently, as chairman of the Children's Society, I was at a presentation by young people who spoke of their own experience. Of course it is possible for young people to exaggerate, but these were young people with ambition to get on in the world, and not to be at the bottom of the pile for the whole of their lives. Most of them had had to leave home because of family disagreements. Sometimes they had to leave because of abuse and sometimes because there just was not room in their own homes. They were not people that we should want to make into lifelong rebels. They had ambition and they wanted to do well. The stories which they told made it clear to me that some form of regulation is necessary.

As has already been said this evening, safety is not negotiable. There should be safety. There should be healthy premises for young people to live in. These young people have no financial capacity to bid for a better place. If they are 16 year-olds on a training course they receive £29 a week, or £35 if they are 17 year-olds. These young people require our protection. Surely as a society we do not want to see them going on to the streets. One of the things that I think is most reprehensible is the number of people sleeping in shop doors in the Strand. I cannot think what that says to visitors to this country. We should be ashamed of it.

I support the amendment. In London alone there are 3,800 young people living in this kind of accommodation. I have heard from their own mouths the difficulties against which they have to contend. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said all that I wanted to say. I support the amendment.

Lord Monkswell

In rising to support the amendment, I can advise the Committee that I have lived in HMOs on a number of occasions. I did so when I left home for the first time. I lived in a room in a house that was apparently condemned as unfit for human habitation. I survived that. My experience of living in HMOs on a number of different occasions advises me that some are good and some are bad. When they are bad, they can be absolutely atrocious. As we have heard from a number of different speakers, that can lead to increased risk to life and limb.

When I initially saw the amendment, I was a little hesitant about it. One of the things that I have been concerned with is limiting Ministers' powers. It is worth pointing out that the amendment will give Ministers an extra power which they can exercise if it is felt warranted. It does not require them to set up this national registration scheme, but it gives them the power to do so if it is felt warranted.

One of the things we all do as parents is to ensure as far as we can the safety of our children. As responsible people we can put pressure on our local council to ensure that there is a satisfactory scheme in our local area. However, when young people leave home it is very difficult—I would say impossible—for parents to say to their children, "You shall live in a local authority area where there are decent standards" and to dissuade them from living in some other local authority area. We must bear in mind that a large number of young people leave home to go to university, which is usually many miles from their own homes, and in the first year they may be in student accommodation provided by the university. But the chances are that in the second and third years they will be at the mercy of the vagaries of the private market. A large number of those young people, who are our sons and daughters, will end up in houses of multiple occupation. As responsible parents how do we ensure that those houses of multiple occupation where our sons and daughters live are of a satisfactory standard which will ensure their safety and that of their friends?

I hope that the Committee will support the amendment. It gives a fall-back power to Ministers to set up a national scheme which some of us believe should be brought in immediately. However, it may take a little time to persuade the Government to do so. If the provision appears on the face of the Bill at least the Government will have the power to act without recourse to primary legislation, which is always difficult given the pressure on parliamentary time. I hope that the Committee and the Government will look with favour on the amendment.

Lord Lucas

I listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and others, in favour of the amendment. I am aware that there were similar substantial debates on the need for national licensing both at Committee and Report stages in another place.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, I have lived most of my life in HMOs. My parents' house, which is a large one, had a flat at one end which was occupied by another family; therefore, it is an HMO. When I moved to London I rented a room in a large house occupied by friends of the family, and that makes it an HMO. The first property I bought in London was a flat that had been converted from what was originally a house and therefore was an HMO. When I finally bought a whole house of my own I let the top floor to friends and that made it an HMO. That illustrates the sort of problem we would create by introducing an indiscriminate national licensing scheme. A large number of houses and properties, which had no business being there, would be brought within the rigours of a scheme aimed principally at the sort of places which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester was talking about, which I have lived next to, but, fortunately not in, where about a dozen people are crammed into a space which would comfortably accommodate about four. They live in conditions of considerable squalor. We are aiming the legislation at places where the majority of problems exist. We wish to give local authorities discretion in identifying the properties which are causing problems in their areas and avoid the blunderbuss effect of having to deal with great numbers of properties where there are no significant problems.

The Government remain unconvinced of the need for a national mandatory licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, our consultation document was admirably even-handed. I wish therefore to explain the reasons why we have come to our conclusions. I emphasise that the Government accept that there is a problem of poor standards in part of the HMO sector and that urgent action is required. We estimate that there are over 600,000 properties in England of various sorts ranging from bedsits and shared student houses to larger hostels and bed and breakfast hotels. This type of housing makes a very important contribution to meeting the need for flexible and low cost accommodation, as my noble friend Lord Gisborough said. The demand is unlikely to fall in the foreseeable future. It is important therefore to ensure that such properties are of a reasonable standard and, above all else, that they are safe, particularly from the risk of fire. My noble friend Lord Gisborough rightly pointed out that some estimates of the fire risk in HMOs has been exaggerated. I do not believe that we would go as far as my noble friend in discounting the risk. We would settle on a figure of about 10 times higher than normal. That risk is clearly far too high, and that is why we have brought forward our package of measures. There is therefore clearly a good deal of common ground on all sides of the Committee in the demand for tougher powers enabling local authorities to improve conditions in those properties.

Perhaps I may set out briefly the principal elements of the Government's package. We are giving local authorities the option of establishing a much tougher kind of HMO registration scheme. Any local authority will be able to introduce a registration scheme for the whole or part of its area if it thinks that there is a serious HMO problem. That will allow local authorities to refuse registration if properties are sub-standard to an extent that is beyond remedy or if the manager is not a fit and proper person. Local authorities can also impose as conditions of registration that works are carried out to make the HMO suitable for occupation and relating to the management of the house. Registration will be renewable every five years and the new control and special control provisions may provide that registration can be revoked if the authority considers that there has been a breach of the conditions relating to the management of the house. We also propose substantially to increase the level of fees payable on registration and re-registration, and these resources can be used to supplement the local authority enforcement effort. So, if only for this reason, we expect most local authorities to make much greater use of registration schemes. We have also made available to local authorities a system of special control provisions which can be adopted with the consent of the Secretary of State. They will allow much tougher control of, and in certain cases, closure of HMOs which are having a serious adverse effect on local amenity. These provisions have been warmly welcomed in another place by Members who represent constituencies with coastal resorts. They acknowledge that the powers we have given local authorities are very wide indeed.

I also emphasise that the HMO package in Part II is not entirely a discretionary package which local authorities can simply choose to ignore. First, Clause 72 places a duty on HMO landlords to keep their property fit for the number of occupants. Local authorities will be able to prosecute landlords who fail to do so. Secondly, we propose to extend substantially the mandatory duty on local authorities to check that there are adequate fire safety precautions in all HMOs falling within the net of the model registration scheme and which are over two storeys high. This will be a major task for the authorities and will ensure that all high-risk HMOs are checked and monitored.

What is at issue is that the Opposition want a national mandatory licensing system which would be imposed on all local authorities. The Government's proposals are different in that we propose a package of measures, some mandatory and some discretionary, which will lead to effective action but at the same time leave local authorities with a degree of extra flexibility in how they tackle the problem. The Government firmly believe that these proposals are preferable to the straitjacket that national licensing would impose. It comes down to whether one trusts local authorities with this element of discretion. Both the Liberal and Labour Parties through their spokesmen have said that they do not. They are prepared to trust the education of our children to local authorities but will not trust them with a small element of discretion in the management of HMOs. I find that extraordinary. I fail to understand what lies behind that lack of trust, unless it be that because most local authorities are now under the control of one or other of the parties opposite they have a better understanding of those bodies than I do. But I cannot believe that that is the case and that the Opposition are right not to trust local authorities in the way that they should.

References have been made to the particular qualities of the proposed amendment. The amendment is a fascinating one. It would create criminal offences by order. Albeit at a rather late stage, it is changed to an affirmative resolution. That is a principle to which we do not subscribe, and it is a course that has been urged against us on several occasions by the Benches opposite. I find it extraordinary that they should put forward an amendment which would involve that.

The Opposition have failed to demonstrate that licensing would add anything to the powers available to local authorities. The Government's package is a tough one, with new powers which were welcomed by local authorities when we consulted them on the details. It is clear that they intend to use them. I have no doubt that these new policies will lead to a substantial improvement to conditions in the HMO stock. We are happy to trust local authorities with the discretion that we propose to give them; I am sorry that the Opposition are not.

9.15 p.m.

Lord Dubs

I am amazed that the Minister has begun to be aggressive so early in the evening. Although I am sure that the Liberal Democrats can speak for themselves, the Minister said that the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party did not trust local authorities. As an example, he quoted education. This debate is not about education, but in so far as the Minister raises that issue he speaks on behalf of a government who have taken away large amounts of discretion from local authorities in education and many other fields. If ever there was a government in the history of this country who had not trusted local authorities it is this one, with capping, controls on finance, the removal of large areas of discretion from local government and turning local authorities into agents of central government. The Minister has the gall to say that we in the Opposition do not trust local authorities. I believe that he has gone too far by a long chalk. It was also a weak argument.

When the Minister spoke of his life history in a series of houses in multiple occupation I almost began to feel sorry for him. It tugged at the heart strings. This poor man had had a difficult time and he was to be the beneficiary of all this legislation. I thought how wonderful it was and that we would be helping a government Minister had this legislation been in place. But the Minister then departed from the thrust of the argument. If there are the full rigours quoted by the Minister, why is it that the kind of accommodation in which the Minister has been living for most of his life, to judge from what he has said, would not meet the standards referred to? If it would, it would be mere child's play to conform to these standards. The whole point is that the setting of standards ensures that those landlords who care more about short-term profits than the well-being and safety of their tenants will be called to order. Those other landlords who do well will surely not find it at all onerous or rigorous to have to comply with these requirements. The Minister has not made his case. Indeed, he weakened it significantly by his diversion into education policy.

Baroness Hamwee

My experience in local government has been that when the Government depart from their usual practice and give discretion to local authorities it is because the issue is one that central government find they cannot tackle because they do not have either the imagination or the will. That has been the increasing experience over a number of years.

I am afraid I do not take seriously the Minister's suggestions that the amendment is being proposed because of any lack of faith in local authorities. I am not going to trade statistics, although I am glad to have heard the Minister say that there was a serious risk. The tone of the Minister's answer suggests a complacency about the issue which I hope is not a real complacency.

The suggestion is made that such a scheme would lead to a reduction in the stock of accommodation. Among the supporters of such a scheme are the Institute of Housing, Shelter, and the National Consumer Council. I cannot imagine that they are organisations that would wish to see the stock reduced. I do not believe that that is a real argument. The cost to landlords, on the information I have—I have referred to research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation—would be about £30. These are not large sums. If the suggestion is that it is not the registration fees but the cost of putting properties back into order which will be a disincentive to landlords, that does not need answering.

Lord Gisborough

Perhaps the noble Baroness will give way. She mentioned £30; but is she aware that many of these houses are old? This morning I was told of houses which it would be uneconomic to bring up to the required standard. I was told of one old house which had to have metal supports put around it in order to comply. Such houses would just go out of the market.

Baroness Hamwee

I am aware that there is a number of large old houses which would cost a great deal to bring up to standard; but is that an argument for approaching the housing problems in this country in this way? I do not believe that it is. I shall have to disagree with the noble Lord.

The amendment is proposed as a reserve power. We know the problems of shortage of parliamentary time. We have a thick Housing Bill. One would have hoped that the Government might see the sense in providing for themselves a power which they could implement if other provisions of the Bill for the discretionary scheme appeared not to be working as well as the Government clearly hope they might.

I had some difficulty in suggesting that additional powers should be handed over to the Government, lock, stock and barrel to introduce something if it is not the intention to start the scheme off in this way. But as I have said, the issue is serious. It is a matter of safety. It is not just a matter of amenity, as important as that is. The noble Lord referred to the special control provisions, but that is not what the amendment addresses. I shall conclude by asking the Minister a question. A good deal of his argument appeared to depend on many types of houses in multiple occupation being ones for which there should be no concern. I understand that a flat at the top of a house, or in a wing of a house, being let to a family other than the owner occupier of the rest of the house would be one of the exceptions which the Government are considering applying to the scheme as proposed in the Bill. If the Minister is saying that some types of division do not require registration, will the Government consider a mandatory licensing scheme for the types which they admit require registration and, as I would put it, licensing?

Lord Lucas

The question does not arise because we like the scheme as we have written it. We do not see the need for a national mandatory scheme. We believe that the flexibility that we have is the flexibility that is desirable.

Baroness Hamwee

Without being discourteous to the Minister, I do not believe that that is a satisfactory answer. The hour is late but it is a matter to which we must return. At the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 64 [Making and approval of registration schemes]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 195: Page 36, line 39, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 195 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 196 and 221. Amendment No. 195 provides that a local authority "shall" make a registration scheme rather than leaving the matter to its discretion. Amendment No. 196 deletes subsections (2) and (3) thus requiring that the scheme shall apply to the whole of the local authority's district. Amendment No. 221 provides for the Secretary of State to take steps to publicise the registration scheme in concert with local authorities as an alternative to the provision in the Bill, which leaves the matter to each local authority. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas

The amendments would make it a mandatory requirement for each local authority to introduce a registration scheme covering the whole of its district. That would carry with it the same objections as we have to national mandatory licensing by going unnecessarily far in dictating to local authorities how they shall tackle problems associated with HMOs.

If local authorities decide to introduce one of the new registration schemes they will, under our proposals, have maximum flexibility in the method of introduction. In many cases they may decide to introduce a scheme only for those parts of their district with the most HMOs and where the problems are worst. They will then have scope to phase in the scheme to other areas if they so wish. I understand, for example, that Bristol City Council, which is under the control of a Labour council, is gradually introducing registration schemes throughout the city on a ward-by-ward basis according to risk priorities and resources permitting. We congratulate the council on the innovation and effectiveness with which it is pursuing that course. Indeed, some authorities will not wish to use registration schemes, believing instead that they can work effectively with the other HMO powers available to them. These amendments would remove such flexibility.

We are keen to make sure that local authorities do have available to them effective registration schemes. However, unlike the parties opposite, we do not wish to be over prescriptive, telling local authorities exactly what they must do. We find it preferable for them to have choice and flexibility.

I turn now to Amendment No. 221. The Government's proposals will not require a national registration scheme and, therefore, publicity for it. But Clause 68 requires local authorities to carry out local publicity if they are planning a registration scheme in their area. The Government are planning national publicity for the code of practice which will be approved by the Secretary of State using the powers in Clause 74. Our view is that, together, those provide an adequate degree of publicity and that Amendment No. 221 would be unnecessary, even if it were phrased to tie in with our approach to the scheme as a whole.

9.30 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee

I did not expect anything different given the debate that we have just had. I note what the Minister says on Amendment No. 221 and the question of publicity. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 196 not moved.]

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 197: Page 36, line 51, at end insert ("and to renew the registration as and when required by the scheme.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 205. Amendments Nos. 197 and 205 are designed to clarify the operation of Clause 64, which introduces greatly improved powers for local authorities to operate registration schemes.

One of the key changes is that registration will in future need to be renewed. We shall be debating how frequently when we come to Amendment No. 198. Amendment No. 197 clarifies the duty on landlords to make it explicit that registration schemes require not only that they must register, but also re-register as necessary.

Amendment No. 205 makes it clear that the power of the Secretary of State to fix different fees is in respect of different cases. Currently the word "different" is not included. For example, there is likely to be a higher fee for a first registration than for a re-registration, since in principle, a re-registration should involve less work. And, as now, the fee is likely to be related to the size of the property. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 198: Page 37, line 3, after first ("of") insert ("not less than one year and not more than").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 199. The point here is very simple. Under the scheme in the Bill, registration is set at an initial period of five years and renewable at five-yearly intervals. This amendment would provide some flexibility for local authorities so that initial registration and the re-registration could take place in a period of time longer than one year.

The point is that a good and conscientious landlord could reasonably be given a lengthy period of registration whereas a landlord who had not behaved well could be given a shorter period so that he might be, as it were, on probation so that he could demonstrate his management qualities before being given a longer period of registration. The amendment would merely provide some flexibility which the Bill, as it now stands, does not provide. I beg to move.

Lord Hylton

This is an important amendment. It is quite surprising the extent to which a house can deteriorate in five years, particularly if it is a house in multiple occupation. One has only to think of the turnover of tenants, the methods of heating and cooking and many other such matters. Therefore, I hope that the amendment commends itself to the Government.

Lord Lucas

I hope that I can convince the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that he has misunderstood the significance of the five-year period which we are proposing. The five-year registration period will set the maximum interval between inspections by the local authority. Local authorities have separate discretionary powers at any time to enter and inspect an HMO and if conditions have declined they may require improvements to be made or, in extreme cases, de-register the property. So in practice there is common agreement on all sides of the Committee that some properties will be more at risk and will need more frequent inspections.

There is an additional significance about the five-year period. We have provided that if a property is accepted for registration because it meets the standard set by the local authority, and provided that conditions do not then decline, it cannot be made the subject of further enforcement action by the authority for a further five-year period. That is to protect landlords who have made significant investment to meet the standard and require some assurance that they will not have to carry out further work for a reasonable period of time because the local authority has changed its mind about the appropriate standards required in that kind of HMO. A five-year registration period will, therefore, offer some protection to responsible landlords who have improved and maintained their properties.

Finally, I have already mentioned the fee income to local authorities which will be generated by the new registration schemes. We will be discussing fees in more detail shortly. But we have to be careful to strike the right balance here. The extra resources will be useful to the local authority, but they must be paid for by the landlord and there is the possibility that some might be passed on to tenants. There is also the danger that excessive fees might force the landlord to withdraw his accommodation from the market. That is why we think that paying a fee every five years represents the right balance and why there is a danger that fees every year would be unfair to the landlord. I hope the comfort that I was able to give the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, at the beginning of my reply will enable him to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Monkswell

I cannot help wondering whether the Minister really appreciates the realities involved. Perhaps I may give the noble Lord the example of one property in which I have no direct interest but about which I have a little knowledge. The landlord I have in mind bought a property in London for £50,000 three years ago. It was in multiple occupation at the time. He was required to make major repairs to the property under the current regime of inspection and housing Act notices, but has blatantly refused to take any notice of such requirements.

To my certain knowledge, that landlord has taken £10,000 out of that house for three years. Therefore, he has made £30,000 out of the house but put virtually nothing into it. He has now sold the property for just under £45,000, having done no work to it at all under the current regime—and we are talking about a regime that will be even more relaxed. The Government are saying, "Yes, let's register this guy for five years. We can inspect the property", and so on.

However, as we have heard, houses can deteriorate quite significantly over a period of time; indeed, in less than five years. The Minister seems to me to be very protective of landlords. The fact that the Government are giving them five years in which to carry on their business with the security that they will be able to do so, actually flies in the face of the reality of the situation as regards some of the most degrading and unsafe accommodation which exists in this country, not to mention the lack of teeth, if I may put it that way, of local authorities to do much about it. In my view, the Government ought to think seriously about the way in which they are approaching the whole subject.

Lord Lucas

I am sure that the noble Lord is mistaken in thinking that what we propose is a more relaxed regime; indeed, we are discussing a much heavier regime than that which currently exists. Certainly a landlord behaving in the way described by the noble Lord would, I hope, be subject to an order from the local authority—that is, if the authority was attentive—stating that he should make the improvements required and that action would be taken if they are not made.

I cannot believe that an efficient local authority would allow such matters to continue for anything like three years before it ultimately took effective action to deregister the property. I believe that our proposal will be a much more effective remedy for the sort of problems outlined by the noble Lord than any system which exists at present.

Lord Dubs

The Minister said that I had misunderstood the Bill. I do not think that I did, although that is always a possibility. The point of this amendment is to give a local authority the flexibility to adjust the period to its assessment of the quality of landlord. The Minister says that under the present scheme if a landlord is a bit suspect, a local authority can carry out an inspection and deregister the landlord. It is a matter of judgment as to which is the more appropriate method. I still think that the method in the amendment of giving a local authority the initial flexibility to set different periods of registration is preferable to having to inspect after giving a five year registration period because the landlord may not be one in whom the local authority has complete confidence. However, I do not wish to take up more of the time of the Committee than is necessary. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 199 and 200 not moved.]

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 201: Page 37, line 11, leave out from ("scheme") to second ("to") in line 12.

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 201, I wish to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 202. This clause already makes it a duty for the person specified in the scheme to register a house covered by the scheme, in what will be subsection (1) of new Section 346A, which is referred to at lines 49 to 51 on page 36. Government Amendment No. 201 deletes what amounts to a restatement of that requirement in subsection(3)(b). I think that would have covered the point that my noble friend Lord Peyton identified in his Amendment No. 200. Amendment No. 202 is consequential on Amendment No. 201. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 202: Page 37, line 13, leave out ("such").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 203: Page 37, line 19, leave out (", subject to subsection (5)").

The noble Lord said: I wish to move Amendment No. 203 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 204. It was only a few minutes ago that the Minister chided the Opposition parties and accused us of not trusting local authorities. Let us put him to the test. This amendment is, fortuitously, one that we tabled some time ago, although it would have been even more relevant to what the Minister said a little while ago. The effect of the amendment would be to give local housing authorities the discretion to set reasonable fees for registration, and for renewal of registration, by removing the Secretary of State's power to provide by order the maximum permissible fee payable, and when no fee is payable. Therefore, the question is simple: do we trust local authorities or do we not? I beg to move.

Lord Lucas

We seem to be back in our accustomed positions on this one. The freedom that the noble Lord is proposing in these amendments is one which would have been denied to local authorities by his earlier amendments, but consistency is not required of the Opposition! I am afraid that I have to say for the Government that I do not think it would be right to abandon the idea of the Government setting a maximum amount that should be charged. We feel that such an abandonment would lead to a situation of widely varying charges throughout the country, and the danger that a small minority of local authorities might abuse their position. We do not think it would be right for the Government to allow that to happen.

Baroness Hamwee

So we trust local authorities, but not now, and not very much! Is that what the Minister is saying? I think it is. I do not wish to take up a great deal more time but I support the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has just moved—indeed, my name is added to it. I hope the Government understand that while this may be our second preference, nevertheless we take our duties as a revising Chamber sufficiently seriously to consider and seek to amend the provisions of the Bill with some seriousness, even though it might not be our Bill in the first place.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Dubs

The Minister said a moment ago that he is afraid that local authorities might abuse their position. Yet we are talking about a situation in which local authorities have complete discretion whether to adopt a scheme. It seems odd to say that they might abuse their position by charging too much even though they do not have to enter the scheme. I think the answer is that the Minister does not trust local authorities and that is why he said what he said.

I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee unnecessarily. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 204 not moved.]

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 205: Page 37, line 34, after ("to") insert ("different").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this Amendment when I moved Amendment No. 197. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 206 and 207 not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 208: Page 37, line 41, at end insert— ("( ) In preparing any model registration scheme, the Secretary of State shall consult such bodies representative of landlords, and such bodies representative of local authorities, as he thinks fit.").

The noble Baroness said: The amendment provides that in preparing a model registration scheme, the Secretary of State will consult bodies representative of landlords and local authorities. Sufficient faith is shown in the Secretary of State for the amendment to provide that they will be such bodies as he thinks fit.

In another place, the Minister indicated that there would be consultation before model schemes are issued by the department. I welcome further information on that point from the Minister. It would be helpful to have the matter on the face of the Bill.

In addition, perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to tell the Committee when the Government intend to start consultations; whom they will consult; the timetable—when they expect to have model schemes available for adoption; how many different types of model scheme the Secretary of State has in mind to offer authorities; and, lastly, what scope the Bill will leave for authorities to adopt schemes different from the model scheme which reflect local priorities.

I have been contacted, as I dare say have other Members of the Committee, by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of universities. It raises questions with regard to registration. Perhaps I may add a request for confirmation that universities' purpose-built accommodation will be excluded from registration schemes given that such accommodation is subject to close controls at present. I beg to move.

Lord Hylton

There is nothing wrong with Amendment No. 208. However, I regret that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, did not move Amendment No. 207 which seemed by far the best amendment out of a series dealing with national model schemes. Had that amendment been agreed, it would have placed a considerable onus on any local authority to show cause why it had not adopted the national model scheme. My experience goes back a few years so it may not be quite so relevant now as it was then. However, the greatest amount of housing stress arose through houses in multiple occupation. In those days the majority were totally unsuited to families that included small children. It ought to be an obligation to prepare a national model scheme which should be capable of being adopted in many local authority areas.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester

I had intended to make the point before but I wish to make it now. A comparison can be drawn between the standards required in accommodation and those required in MoT tests for cars. We do not shrink from having high standards for our cars on the grounds that people would not pay the money to implement the requirements because we know that human safety and well being are involved. Therefore, we should not shrink from having the highest possible standards in accommodation for families and young people.

Lord Lucas

I fully share the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the benefits of consultation and I can assure her that the Government agree entirely with the need to consult on the content of any model registration scheme made under Clause 64 of the Bill. This is precisely what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment intends to do: he will, in fact, be consulting even more widely than the duty proposed in this amendment, which refers only to landlord groups and local authorities. For example, we will be talking to tenant groups as well.

This autumn we expect to talk to local authority associations, the Campaign for Bedsit Rights, the Small Landlords Association and the universities. During that consultation we shall cover the question of university halls of residence and will consult a number of other organisations to ensure that the consultation is properly comprehensive.

Consultation on the model registration schemes will be particularly important as a result of changes to the Bill made in another place. When the Bill was first presented to Parliament there were provisions on registration schemes on the face of the Bill which excluded certain categories of HMOs from being included in a registration scheme. Those categories were principally the smaller properties with only a handful of tenants, but houses divided entirely into self-contained flats were also to be excluded. Following the debate in Committee in another place, the Government brought forward amendments at Report stage deleting the exclusions but making it clear that exclusions of the smaller HMOs regarded as low-risk properties would be incorporated into the model schemes.

The Government also undertook to look again at the exclusion of self-contained flats and to try to ensure that houses divided into such flats which were predominantly let out to renting tenants would be registrable. Discussion on these points will therefore form part of the consultation process on the model schemes which I hope will take place later in the year.

With those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

I take it from the assurances that it is implicit that the Government will consult with a view to the possibility of a number of different types of model scheme. They will listen to representations made about the adoption of schemes which are different from model schemes and which will reflect local priorities. After all, the point of consultation is to make the best use of the views that are shared with the consultor.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, Amendment No. 207 was in any event the property of the Committee, had anyone else wished to debate it. I did not move it because I thought that for this evening we were beginning to exhaust the issue of local discretion. We may well return to it at a later stage. Having commented on the Government's consultation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 209 not moved.]

Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 65 [Registration schemes: control provisions]:

[Amendments Nos. 210 to 212 not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 212A: Page 39, line 33 leave out from ("or") to ("or") in line 34, and insert ("in the case of paragraph (d), where paragraphs (a) to (c) above do not apply, within 12 months of the application").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment deals with the question of appeal. Although it looks a little complicated and legalistic, the principle behind it is that if a local authority is neither granted nor refused an application, there should be a right of appeal from the five-week point, but not a 21-day time limit. In other words, it seeks to leave a little more scope and flexibility for dealing with the issues that arise in the matter of appeals and in the rather tight time limit laid down in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas

The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, drew our attention to the dangers that can come from landlords failing to comply with requirements of legislation for some considerable period of time. They can profit greatly from that while doing things that everyone would consider undesirable. That is the principal reason why we do not wish to give way to this amendment.

I can understand that a landlord may feel aggrieved if he misses the limited time period of three weeks in which he may go to court. However, the change proposed in the amendment would be neither sensible nor helpful to the landlord.

The reason why the appeal time is fairly short is that we want such applications to be dealt with quickly, in the interests of tenants' safety. There should therefore be adequate pressure on all parties—local authorities and landlords—to process the applications for registration as quickly as possible and for any appeal to follow soon after the decision has been made.

The clause as drafted allows an extension of those time periods if all the parties can agree. That applies to the five-week period that must be allowed for the local authority to process the application and the three-week period for appeal. These provisions should be sufficient to cope with the vast majority of cases.

In exceptional cases where the local authority has failed to respond to an application for registration and the landlord inadvertently misses his chance of appeal, there is no bar on his submitting a fresh application for registration and beginning the process again. He would not have to pay a repeat fee, as payment is made on first registration. I hope that those assurances are enough to enable the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

As I made entirely clear at the start of the debate on this part of the Bill, I regard safety as of the utmost importance. I therefore take the Minister's point seriously. However, I am less convinced by the argument that a landlord can go back and start the process again. There is a balance to be struck between providing a period within which the parties affected can operate without its being too protracted and a period so short that it is difficult to comply with and tempts the applicant to give up on one application and start the process again. There has been criticism of additional bureaucracy proposed from these Benches. That seems a fair recipe for additional bureaucracy. However, I shall not press the point at this time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10 p.m.

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 213: Page 40, line 5, after ("registered") insert ("or revoke the registration").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 214. These amendments make some minor changes to the provisions in Clause 65 which allow the local authority to vary the terms of the registration or revoke it, if conditions in the HMO begin to deteriorate. The clause as currently drafted in the Bill is not quite right as the grounds for revocation do not, in the Government's view, cover every possibility that might occur.

Amendment No. 213 concerns the situation, which is likely to be very rare, when for some reason the registered property becomes unsuitable and incapable of being made suitable for multiple occupation. As presently drafted, the clause allows the local authority to vary the number of households for which it is registered, but to cover every eventuality the amendment would allow the registration to be revoked in these circumstances.

Amendment No. 214 would further allow the local authority to revoke registration if additional facts came to light after the property had been first registered or renewed to show that the manager of the property was not a fit and proper person. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 214: Page 40, line 22, after ("that") insert‗ ("(a) the person having control of the house or the person managing it is not a fit and proper person, or (b)")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 66 [Registration schemes: special control provisions]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 215: Page 40, line 43, leave out ("their existence or the behaviour of their residents") and insert ("the way in which the houses are managed").

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 216 and 218. All the amendments stand in the name of myself and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel.

With these amendments we move to Clause 66, the special control provisions to deal with matters of amenity. That may sound trivial. I accept that the presence of large numbers of houses in multiple occupation can have particular effects on a district. But I feel that in a number of ways, the provisions go rather far.

The effect of the amendments would be to remove the "existence of the house or the behaviour of the residents" as a trigger for local authorities' consideration of the use of these provisions. The amendment replaces those terms with wording which places the burden of the use of the powers on the way in which an HMO is managed. Where serious nuisance problems occur in HMOs, it is frequently because of bad management. These amendments are intended to make that clear and lay the responsibility on the manager.

The powers in Clause 66 are very strong indeed. They allow an HMO to be closed down if, in the view of the local authority and after consulting the local residents and others, the: existence [of the house] or the behaviour of their residents … [is] adversely affecting the amenity or character of the area in which they are situated". I believe that it would be better if there were powers to control poor management rather than to shut down houses to the detriment of the occupants. After all, there is legislation, including provisions in the 1985 Housing Act.

The reference to the behaviour of the residents appears to be an open invitation to attack HMOs on the NIMBY (not in my back yard) principle. I do not believe that that will encourage good standard HMOs as the Government suggest. I believe that the proposed words would provide a more objective test and a better form of control. I beg to move.

Lord Dubs

I support Amendment No. 215. In answer to a question that the Minister may put to me, yes, I do trust the majority of local authorities but I do not always trust every local authority. I have enough examples to support both contentions.

One of the points that bothers me about the provisions contained in the Bill—after all, this amendment, if accepted, would provide some safeguards—is that they not only give local authorities powers to deal with existing HMOs, but they can also prevent a new HMO being opened. That means that local residents can say, "We do not like the sort of residents the HMO will house." That opens the door to a great deal of prejudice and not much rational argument and may pander to some of the less healthy instincts one occasionally comes across when people do not like people of different lifestyles living in the same street or not too far away. It is important therefore that the amendment provides for the way in which the houses are managed. That is a much better approach than a provision regarding the behaviour of the residents or the existence of the HMO itself.

Perhaps I can take up the time of the Committee for a little longer to give an example from Wandsworth council. It so happens that it had other powers exceptionally, but I fear that it could use these powers if it did not already have those other powers. The example concerns an empty old people's home which the organisation of which I used to be the director—the Refugee Council—wanted to occupy for a few months to house Bosnian refugees coming to this country under a Home Office scheme.

Wandsworth council said that it would not allow the organisation to use that property for the Bosnian refugees because the local residents would not like it. In fact, that was not true. The local residents and the local church were quite happy about it. However, the council used its powers to say, "These are not the sort of people we want in this part of the borough." It was Balham.

My fear is that there may be occasions when local authorities will use their powers in a way which is undesirable. The majority of local authorities will not do that; the minority may. The amendment will provide at least something of a safeguard against the abuse of such powers.

Lord Lucas

I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I are again thinking the same thoughts. Neither of us wants to see a situation where we get into some form of ethnic cleansing as a result of these provisions. For the sake of avoiding argument at later stages of the Bill, I note that if we had agreed to Amendment No. 209, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, lent his name, we would have got into a position where local authorities were free to do whatever they wanted in that regard. The provisions under Clause 66 will be subject in every case to the approval of the Secretary of State. I can assure the noble Lord that the scenario that he paints of councils trying to shift what they regard as undesirable people out of one ward into another or out of their area altogether is not something which will be permitted.

Local authorities need to deal with social and economic problems which can arise from a concentration of HMOs in a specific area where they are badly managed or where there are simply too many of them. That has been a specific problem in a number of seaside resorts such as Blackpool, Scarborough, Margate and Bournemouth. Many of the hotels or guesthouses that used to cater for the tourist trade have converted to become hostels offering bed and breakfast. Many of them cater for single, young people who rely on income support and housing benefit and who often move considerable distances to live in those seaside towns. For example, the magazine, Loot, which circulates in the London area frequently carries advertisements placed by hostel operators in Margate offering, "Free breakfast and evening meal, free Sky TV, no bills, move in today, DSS welcome, help with all forms". If all these extra benefits can be provided, it throws into interesting contrast the question of whether benefit levels are adequate.

Offering accommodation to people in need of housing is, of course, commendable. But too often there is a concentration of HMOs in particular areas, and many of them are not particularly well-managed. The result is that the whole character of an area can rapidly change. Unfortunately, social problems such as drunkenness or drug taking can become rife. Once an area begins this downward spiral, it becomes increasingly difficult for the remaining hotel businesses to attract custom—holiday makers simply do not want to walk in streets where they may face drunken abuse or where they may have to pick their way through used syringes.

In response to these concerns, the Government have brought forward the proposals in Clause 66 to allow local authorities to adopt "special control provisions". If an authority does adopt these provisions in an HMO registration scheme, it will be empowered to refuse registration (or revoke an existing registration) if the existence of the HMO or the behaviour of its residents has an adverse effect on the amenity or character of the area in which it is situated. In the case of an existing HMO, the local authority will be able to do this only if the person controlling or managing the HMO has failed in some way to take steps to prevent that adverse effect. For new HMOs, the authority can take into account the number of existing HMOs in the vicinity before deciding whether to permit or refuse registration.

Amendments Nos. 215, 216 and 218 remove the references to the existence of the HMO and to behaviour of the residents in the three places in which they occur in Clause 66, and replace them instead by a reference to "the way in which the house is managed". That would have the effect of considerably weakening the proposals. For it is often the behaviour of the residents in, or in the vicinity of, the HMO which causes the adverse impact on the area, and so this is something which the local authority should clearly be able to take into account in exercising its powers. It seems much better to us that these powers should be directed at the insult which neighbours are suffering rather than to some vague term about the quality of management of the HMO which is much more remote from that insult.

The fact that the local authority can take into account "behaviour" will not give it carte blanche to hold landlords responsible for anything which their tenants do. The authority may only act against an existing HMO if there has been some failure by the management to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to deal with any problems arising from the behaviour of the tenants. This will be a matter for local authorities to consider, and also for the courts if a landlord appeals against a local authority's decision. But I should have thought it might be regarded as reasonable for a landlord to deal with, for example, excessive noise or drunkenness arising within the HMO or its vicinity. The landlord could take steps, if necessary by evicting tenants who cause the problem, if the HMO is, to put it colloquially, ruining the area. General anti-social behaviour elsewhere in the town would not, of course, be within the control of the landlord.

I therefore cannot accept the amendment which has been put forward. By focusing solely on the performance of the manager, without implicitly requiring him to manage the property so as actively to reduce any nuisance caused by the behaviour of its tenants, it considerably weakens the scheme and would not give those local authorities which have been pressing for additional powers the scope they need to deal with the social problems they face.

Similarly, by removing the reference to the "existence" of the HMO, the amendment would prevent local authorities effectively controlling the rate at which new HMOs may be opened. The local authorities most affected by the problems are clear that they want a power of this type. It may give some comfort to the noble Baroness to know that Scarborough has written to my honourable friend to indicate that it would not expect, when it has these powers, to use them in more than five instances, and that number would be reduced even further once the initial weeding out process was concluded. This is not a problem which will need the kind of draconian measures which appear to be feared by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. It will be one which, when the powers are there, should, we hope, fade away.

10.15 p.m.

Lord Monkswell

It seems to me that this is a question of whether one requires the management of an HMO to control the tenant or one says that one will not allow these tenants in the area because they will create problems and a bad situation. I suggest that one of the risks in looking at the two extremes, if I may call them that, is that one runs the risk of trying to get the manager of an HMO to control the behaviour of the tenants which has nothing to do with where they live but with the behaviour outside in the street and in the community, which are not amenable to decisions by the manager. There is also the risk of pointing the finger at the tenants for bad behaviour and saying, "If you have HMOs you will have bad people here and it will be very difficult for people living in the community".

I do not want to digress too much, but it is rather like the discussion we had the other day about unemployment and crime. While it is wrong to blame an individual unemployed person for being a criminal, which he is not, one needs to recognise that if there is a high proportion of unemployment in society there is a commensurate increase in crime. There should be enough sociological evidence to show that if one has a density of HMOs in a particular area, there is a consequent risk of disturbances in the community and anti-social behaviour. Therefore, rather than targeting the individual who is living in an HMO and saying, "You are likely to be a bad person who should not be here", we need to ensure that there is not too high a proportion of HMOs in an area which is likely to lead to social problems. It is trying to find some balance in not blaming the tenants and the managers, but in saying that we all need to consider something which is likely to be problematical.

Lord Lucas

I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that these are provisions which have to be handled with great care and discretion in order not to create the sort of problems he has alluded to.

Baroness Hamwee

I have become rather more alarmed, rather than comforted, about the special control provisions as I have listened to this debate. I know that is not what the noble Lord intended. In general, the question of an area changing is a matter for planning rather than this kind of provision which, as I read it, gives scope for putting the blame in the wrong place or at any rate putting more blame on only some of the people who deserve it.

As I have said, the local authorities have power to control the poor management of HMOs. They can use the control provisions that we have already debated. They can prosecute through management regulations under Section 372 of the 1985 Act. They can remove control from a bad landlord where there is a risk to health, safety and welfare under Section 379 of that Act; and where a property is unfit they can use closing order powers.

To provide in legislation for the existence of a house giving rise to the possibility of applying certain control provisions seems to undermine what the Government have been saying about needing to encourage and support the stock. It may lead to some authorities outlawing HMOs whatever the Minister may say. It may undermine other government initiatives and joint initiatives with voluntary organisations including the use of private rented accommodation by homeless people and the expansion of accommodation under the Rough Sleepers' Initiative and various community care and other initiatives.

The arguments adopted by the Minister appear to lay the blame in the wrong direction. I fear, even more than when I read this clause, that it could be used to pander to some of the less deserving calls for changes in the character of the neighbourhood in order to reverse a movement. It is too late to pursue the matter now, but it will be interesting to come back to this matter and to review, in the light of what the Minister has said—I will read it in Hansard—whether these draconian powers should be allowed to remain in the Bill in quite such an extensive fashion. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 216 not moved.]

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 217: Page 42, line 24, at end insert— ("( ) Where the decision of the authority was to impose conditions of registration, the court may direct the authority to grant the application without imposing the conditions or to impose the conditions as varied in such manner as the court may direct.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment makes a small change to the powers available to the court when an appeal is made against the use of special control provisions as set out in Clause 66. As presently drafted, the court is allowed to direct the authority to grant the application for registration as made or as varied in such manner as the court may direct. The amendment would additionally provide that the court might, when registration was granted subject to conditions, direct that the authority delete or vary the conditions which the authority had imposed. This change would mean that the powers available to the court on appeal against the use of special control provisions would more closely mirror the appeal procedures in relation to normal control provisions as set out in Clause 65.

I beg to move Amendment No. 217.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 217A: Page 43, line 33, leave out from ("brought") to end of line 36 and insert— ("(b) if a further appeal to the Court of Appeal is brought, a decision on that appeal is given and the period within which an appeal to the House of Lords may be brought expires without any such appeal having been brought, or (c) if a further appeal to the House of Lords is brought, a decision on that appeal is given confirming the direction (with or without variation).").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 217A. The short point is: what about an appeal to the House of Lords? The Bill provides for appeals to the Court of Appeal. Can the Government comment on appeals stopping at that point?

Lord Lucas

I share the objective of the noble Baroness that an occupancy direction should not bite until all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. But it may be that this amendment is unnecessary. An appeal to this House in its judicial capacity is always by leave. If leave is granted by the Court of Appeal that court has power to make an order suspending the effect of the decision or direction which is the subject of the appeal. It also has power to grant a stay until the time for seeking the leave of the House has expired or the case is disposed of where the appeal court has itself refused leave. It is for this reason that when dealing with rights of appeal to the courts housing legislation contains no explicit provision on the face of the statute staying the effect of the decision beyond the decision of the Court of Appeal.

I shall consider whether there is any advantage in having something on the face of the Bill. If so, I shall bring forward an amendment at the next stage. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel sufficiently comforted by those words to enable her to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

For the moment, the explanation of the Minister is helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 218 not moved.]

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 219: Page 43, line 48, at end insert— Special control provisions: guidance to local housing authorities. ("348G.—(1) The Secretary of State shall issue guidance to local housing authorities concerning their exercise of special control provisions under this Part. (2) In drawing up the guidance under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall consult local housing authorities and other relevant organisations. (3) In exercising special control provisions under this Part, the authority shall have regard to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (1).'"').

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 219 in the names of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The arguments in favour of this particular amendment are similar to those used for Amendment No. 215. However, the solution is slightly different. In Amendment No. 215 we talked about the way in which houses were managed, whereas in Amendment No. 219 the amendment simply requests that the Secretary of State shall issue guidance to local authorities as to how to use these powers. In his reply to Amendment No. 215, the Minister said that local authorities would not be allowed to abuse their powers, for example by way of ethnic cleansing at local level to which the Minister referred. This was based on an example that I had given. However, he did not say by what means local authorities would be prevented from abusing their powers. Amendment No. 219 gives a straightforward model. There would be guidance given by the Secretary of State to which local authorities would have to have regard. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas

I have considerable sympathy with the concerns expressed by the noble Lord. I accept that the powers available to local authorities under these provisions are considerable. There will be a clear need for them to be exercised with due care and consideration. However, there are a number of safeguards implicit in the legislative provisions setting out the special control conditions and, within those parameters, I think local authorities will be best placed to exercise their discretion in using the powers at their disposal.

There are a number of important points. First, special control provisions will not be available to local housing authorities as a matter of routine. They will be available only when an authority makes out a case for their use to the Secretary of State. At that stage, we shall make guidance available to local authorities on how these special control conditions can be incorporated into a registration scheme, although, as I have said, we shall not formally be issuing a model scheme which incorporates them.

There are important safeguards in relation to the service of an occupancy direction which will require the manager of the HMO to take all necessary steps, within a period not less than 28 days, to bring all tenancies to an end. First, Clause 66 provides that in deciding to make an occupancy direction the local authority shall take into account the interests of the occupants of the house and the person having control of the house as well as the interests of local residents and businesses; in other words, the local authority is required to take a balanced approach.

Secondly, the clause also provides that any person aggrieved by an occupancy direction may appeal against it to the county court. Thirdly, following discussion in Committee in another place, an amendment was brought forward by the Government to provide that the statutory protection of tenure afforded to Rent Act tenants cannot be affected by an occupancy direction. That will prevent the exploitation of the use of special control provisions by landlords to gain vacant possession in these cases.

The special control conditions are designed to deal with particular problems which have arisen in a number of resort areas due to the proliferation of HMOs. It is important that they can be used to deal effectively with those problems; but at the same time the safeguards I have highlighted are designed to prevent them being over-zealously applied by local authorities.

I therefore see no immediate need for the comprehensive further guidance envisaged by this amendment. Of course, the Government will keep under close review the use of these powers and take any further steps necessary if problems occur. That may include the issuing of such further guidance, and the provisions under Clause 74 which allows the Secretary of State to approve codes of practice in relation to those matters would provide for that to be done.

In the light of those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Dubs

I thank the Minister for his answer. As I understand it, he says that if a local authority applies to use the special control provisions, the Secretary of State would give guidance to the local authority. If I were a local councillor considering the use of those powers I should want to know what the guidance was before I asked to have the powers. It is becoming a little circular. I suspect that local authorities would get to know what was the guidance in a general sense. The Minister is being uncharacteristically difficult about this proposal. Nevertheless, to save time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 220 not moved.]

Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 67 agreed to.

Clause 68 [Information requirements in connection with registration schemes]:

[Amendment No. 221 not moved.]

Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 222: Page 45, line 27, at end insert— ("( ) After a scheme is confirmed, the local housing authority shall—

1. (a) ensure the register of all properties is open to inspection by the public free of charge at all reasonable hours; and
2. (b) on request, and on payment of any such reasonable fee as the authority may require, supply copies of the register to any person.".").

The noble Lord said: I welcome the Government's proposal for registration schemes. The new proposals will ensure greater consistency in local authorities' approaches to registration schemes, and the landlords will better understand what is expected of them. Where a local authority has put a registration scheme in place, landlords must register their HMOs, and local authorities will be able to refuse registration if the HMO is below standard, overcrowded, or if the management arrangements in the HMO are unsatisfactory. It follows, therefore, that those HMOs which have been registered by the local authority will be of an approved satisfactory minimum standard. Good landlords will therefore be encouraged to participate fully in registration schemes as it will be to their commercial advantage to do so. If they are able to demonstrate to tenants that their HMO has been registered and therefore conforms to the minimum standards tenants are more likely to take a room in their property than in another which has not achieved registration. Tenants will also be able to take comfort from the scheme as they will be able to establish with the local authority whether the HMO is registered and, if so, will be reassured about standards.

For the scheme to work effectively, however, it is important that the information concerning registered properties is freely available to landlords and tenants alike. It is not clear that the Bill as currently drafted would require local authorities to publish details of the properties registered under the scheme. It would appear that the only requirement which local authorities currently have under the Bill is to make information about the nature and mechanics of the scheme publicly available, not necessarily the properties listed in the register. If the details of the properties themselves were available it would reinforce the role of the local authority, give reassurance to tenants and give accreditation to landlords of registered properties. That would raise public confidence in the whole scheme and increase transparency.

It is worth noting that both the planning system and the rent register system already operate with open registers and I would encourage the Government, through my amendment, to adopt the same principle with regard to HMO registration schemes. I beg to move.

10.30 p.m.

Lord Lucas

We find ourselves in sympathy with my noble friend's amendment but I should like the opportunity to consider the precise wording in further detail and to return to it on Report. I hope that with that assurance my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Gisborough

I am most grateful to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 68 agreed to.

Clause 69 agreed to.

Clause 70 [Restriction on notices requiring execution of works]:

Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 223: Page 46, line 11, leave out ("they consider that").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 223 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 224. I warmly welcome Clause 70 of the Housing Bill, which amends Section 352 of the Housing Act under which local authorities are empowered to require works to a property to render the premises fit for the number of occupants. Many landlords have found in the past that they have been served with a succession of Section 352 notices at relatively short intervals. That may result from the fact that the standards required by the local authority become more onerous rather than the conditions in the HMOs becoming worse.

Under Clause 70, if an authority serves a notice and the works specified are carried out the local authority may not serve another notice within a five-year period unless the authority considers that there has been a change in circumstances in relation to the property. This new five-year period is important and will give landlords greater certainty with regard to the management of their property and the clause will be welcomed by landlords in the private rented sector as a useful attempt to prevent undue disturbance in the management of HMOs.

My amendment seeks to tighten the drafting of Clause 70 and remove some of the discretion which local authorities will undoubtedly have under the new provision in the Housing Act 1985. As currently drafted, a local authority would be able to serve another notice before the end of the five-year period if there had been any change in circumstances in relation to the premises, however small that change of circumstance might be. It also states that a local authority may serve a notice if it considers that there has been a change in circumstance. That appears to provide plenty of grounds for dispute regarding, first, whether there has been a change of circumstance significant enough to merit a further notice and, secondly, whether the local authority is right to consider that there has been a change of circumstance.

My amendment will mean that only material changes to the property could trigger the possibility of another notice and ensure that the identification of those changes is not restricted to the discretion of the local authority. It will ensure that the new provision in Section 352 of the Housing Act is used on a more objective basis. Without the amendment, over-zealous local authorities may be inclined to serve additional notices where there have been, in their opinion, even insignificant or minor technical changes to the property. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas

We are content with Clause 70 as it stands. We feel that if the landlord thinks that the relevant change in circumstance is only trivial, he can appeal to the court. A court is likely to use the de minimis principle and uphold the appeal if the change has indeed been insignificant. Under those circumstances, we feel that the proposed changes not only introduce an unacceptable element of uncertainty into the Bill but also achieve nothing.

Lord Gisborough

I thank my noble friend and withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 224 not moved.]

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 225: Page 46, line 14, after ("premises") insert (", the nature of its occupation").

The noble Lord said: There is a very small point at issue here. Under Section 352 of the Housing Act 1985 a local authority can serve notice requiring specific works to render an HMO suitable for the numbers of occupants and the households in occupation. Those requirements enable provision to be made for sufficient and suitable amenities such as toilets, baths and showers, and also to provide adequate means of escape in case of fire or adequate fire precautions.

However, the provisions do not enable the local authorities to allow for changes in occupation of the premises. That seems to be something which may alter quite rapidly over a period of years and certainly within the five-year period stipulated. The amendment would enable the local authority to take into account changes in the nature of the occupancy of the HMO in addition to the other criteria which they can already take into account. I beg to move.

Lord Northbourne

I support the amendment in the light of the amendments which I propose to table later in respect of the special needs of children and young families.

Lord Lucas

It is beyond our imagination to think of any change in the nature of occupation which would not also entail a change to the availability or use of the facilities. Those circumstances are already provided for in the clause as drafted. If the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Northbourne, can envisage anything else, perhaps they will write to me.

Lord Dubs

In the light of the Minister's comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 70 agreed to.

Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 226: After Clause 70, insert the following new clause— PERIOD OF COMPLIANCE WITH AND APPEALS AGAINST NOTICES SERVED (" .—(1) In section 352(4) of the Housing Act 1985, for "21" substitute "42". (2) In section 353(1) of the Housing Act 1985, for "21" substitute "42".").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 226 introduces a new clause to the Bill to increase the period of compliance with, or appeal against, notices. Section 352 of the Housing Act 1985 gives local authorities the power to serve a notice on the owner of an HMO requiring works to the property. The notice will specify what works the local authority believes should be carried out to the property. In the notice, the authority must also specify a date by which the works must be commenced. That can be as soon as 21 days after the date of the notice.

During that 21-day period, landlords have an opportunity to lodge an appeal against the notice. My amendment proposes that both those periods should be extended to 42 days to allow landlords sufficient time to assess their position and either commence the works or lodge an appeal.

Twenty-one days is far too short a period for proper consideration of the notice received from the local authority and the works which need doing. It is too short a period in which to obtain estimates and quotations from contractors and to commission the work. It is also too short for proper consideration of the possibility of an appeal against the notice.

The majority of owners of HMOs are private landlords rather than corporate bodies who may be unfamiliar with the complexity of the legislation and may not have access to legal resources. For the average private landlord letting, say, two or three houses on a part-time basis, the receipt of a notice under Section 352 may well be his first encounter with a local authority's housing department. If served with a notice, the landlord would have three weeks in which he would need to read up and become conversant with the law and regulations, consult with lawyers and surveyors, obtain quotations for the works; assess the validity of the notice, consider the possibility of an appeal, and, perhaps more importantly, attempt to discuss the issue and negotiate with the local authority environmental health officers. Therefore, it is appropriate that the limits in question should be extended to 42 days. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas

I accept that it would be quite unreasonable in nearly all cases for landlords to receive an enforcement notice without any prior warning and then have only a three-week period in which to take the necessary steps. The reason for such a tight time limit is that, if the property is in such a state of disrepair that the tenants' welfare is at risk, the authority must be in a position to demand urgent action. It is general practice for local authorities to allow much longer.

When we come to deal with Amendment No. 240 we shall be looking at some provisions which I believe will ameliorate the situation. That amendment will require a local authority to give written notice of its intentions to serve an enforcement notice under Section 352 or Section 372 of the 1985 Act and to hear representations before any formal enforcement action can commence. That would mean that taking formal enforcement action by serving a Section 352 notice would only occur as a last resort or when urgent action is necessary to protect the safety or welfare of the occupants of an HMO. Under those circumstances, when that amendment is incorporated, I believe that my noble friend Lord Gisborough should find the legislation agreeable to him.

Lord Gisborough

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that response. On the face of it, it would seem that that would be satisfactory. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 71 agreed to.

Clause 72 [Duty to keep premises fit for number of occupants]:

Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 227: Page 47, line 21, at end insert ("which may expose any tenant or other occupant of the premises, or any other person, to risks to their health or safety").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 227 I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 229, 231 and 232.

Clause 72 is a key part of the Government's package of measures to improve standards in houses in multiple occupation. Under the clause, which amends the Housing Act 1985, landlords will be under a general duty of care to ensure that they manage their properties in such a way as to prevent the necessity for the service of a Section 352 notice.

Breach of that general duty of care will, under the Government's proposals, be a criminal offence. That is a quite wide-ranging and, some might say, draconian new power which local authorities are being given. Some landlords have expressed considerable unease at this new duty of care, not because they are unwilling to promote good standards in their properties but rather because they fear that they may be criminalised for trivial matters, or in respect of things which are outside their control. Therefore, we must ensure that there are appropriate safeguards to ensure that that power is not abused.

Amendment No. 227 seeks to ensure that a landlord could only be prosecuted for a breach of his duty of care where there is an actual risk to the health or safety of any person in the premises and that circumstances falling short of a threat to health and safety would not put the landlord in breach of the duty of care. The amendment is particularly important when one considers that landlords have been threatened in the past with Section 352 notices for relatively trivial matters, such as a requirement that each unit in an HMO should be provided with its own refrigerator and individual wash-hand basins, even though such facilities had not been requested by the tenant.

The duty of care is intended to prevent landlords from supplying unsafe or unhealthy accommodation. There is a danger, however, that the duty of care will go further than this and include matters which go beyond health and safety and are much more to do with amenity standards. Is it right, for instance, that a landlord might face a £5,000 fine because a tenant's partner has moved into the property, possibly without the landlord's consent and as a result, the house should now, according to the local authority, have three lavatories rather than two because the number of residents has increased by one? The duty of care must not be so severe as to discourage prudent law abiding landlords from having anything to do with residential letting, leaving only the cowboys who will ignore the law, whatever legislation the Government put in place.

Amendment No. 229 further amends the duty of care so that a landlord who had breached the duty of care but had a reasonable excuse for doing so would not be prosecuted. In all these issues we must remember that housing is of an infinitely variable character and form. This amendment makes allowance for the practicalities of carrying out work under particular circumstances. For instance, a landlord may wish to enter the premises to carry out works to ensure that he is not in breach of his duty of care but finds that the tenant is being obstructive and is refusing access to the property. I have experienced that. It would be quite unreasonable if a landlord were to be penalised for failing to comply with the general duty of care when matters were beyond his control. Many HMOs are let to students who may ask that the landlord does not carry out work to the property during term time. It would be unreasonable of the landlord to ignore this request and to do so may leave him open to a charge of harassment. On the other hand, he may be obliged to ignore his tenants' request because if he does not carry out work to the property he would find himself in breach of the general duty of care.

My amendment is not intended to be a let out for those landlords who have no intention of bringing their property up to a required standard. It will, however, allow for unforeseen circumstances to be taken into account. It is worth remembering that when the Bill was originally drafted the landlord was only deemed to have committed an offence if he had knowingly failed to comply with the duty of care. The "knowingly" provision was removed from the Bill at the Committee stage in another place. The Government suggested, however, that an alternative form of words should be put in its place. That has not happened. My amendment suggests that those words should be, fails to comply "without reasonable excuse". I hope the Government will be able to adopt this as an appropriate compromise.

When considering whether a landlord is in breach of the duty of care, Amendment No. 232 will ensure that the local authority can have regard to all the circumstances of the particular case and take account of the infinitely variable characteristics of buildings and circumstances in the private rented sector. In particular, the local authority in considering whether there has been a breach of the duty of care will be able to look at the physical nature of the building and the cost of remedial work. It will ensure that where there are inherent but reasonable obstacles to meeting the standard, the duty of care may not necessarily be breached. The local authority may want to consider, for example, circumstances where the house is shortly to be demolished; houses about to undergo a change of use; houses where the work for good reasons cannot be undertaken for the moment; and houses that nearly meet the requirements but cannot be further upgraded without disproportionate expenditure or disruption. In all of these cases it would be unreasonable for a local authority to require extensive works to the property. My amendment would ensure that the duty of care would be implemented flexibly and with discretion.

Amendment No. 231 seeks to ensure that landlords have adequate advice about their new duties in order that they are able to perform them economically and promptly. Under my amendment local authorities would be required to provide information to assist landlords with their duties. The local authority is in a good position to provide this as its officers are already in possession of extensive specialist experience in the field, and the advice required by my amendment could be given by local authorities' existing environmental health departments. Without the amendment there is danger that the new duty of care will be seen as an unreasonable and intolerable burden. The requirement to provide landlords with advice should foster a greater spirit of co-operation, and break down some of the barriers which currently exist between landlords and local authorities. I beg to move.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

I had not intended to speak because this is not the section of the Bill in which I am most closely involved. However, I cannot resist asking the Government to reject Amendment No. 227.

Some of the worst housing that exists is at the bottom end of the HMO sector. Local authorities' powers are still often too modest and too hard to enforce to ensure that appropriate accommodation is provided for people for whom it is home. Any efforts to dilute already not very strong powers would be greatly regretted.

I refer, for example, to the notion that it is not the landlord's fault if there are insufficient toilets because additional people have arrived. The whole point of having standards is to ensure that there is adequate sanitation, water supply, safe storage, fire protections, lighting, safety on the stairs, and such considerations. It is hard enough now for local authorities and environmental health officers to make those standards stick. If the Committee were minded to accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, the task would be made even more difficult and the housing conditions for many people would become even poorer.

Lord Lucas

I am sure that the noble Baroness realises that we accept only Opposition amendments apart from our own. It would be bad for morale on our Back Benches if we were to encourage them by accepting their amendments!

However, I hope that I can give my noble friend some comfort. I do not believe that Amendment No. 227 takes us beyond what the Government already propose. The duty on landlords under Clause 72 is framed by providing that the landlord must prevent standards falling in the HMO to a point where the local authority could serve an enforcement notice. But authorities can only do that if they feel that the facilities in the property relating to cooking, washing, sanitation or fire safety are not reasonably suitable for the number of persons occupying the property. I am sure that the whole Committee would agree that if any of those circumstances occurred then the tenant's health or safety could arguably be at risk.

Amendment No. 229 modifies the offence in relation to the new landlord's duty by providing that an offence would occur only if the landlord failed to comply with the duty without reasonable excuse. I have several points to make. First, the duty is already qualified by stating that the landlord should take only such steps as are reasonably practicable to comply with the code.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the code of practice which can be approved by the Secretary of State under Clause 74 will provide guidance to the landlord on how to comply with this duty. The code will be evidential in a court of law which means that if a prosecution is brought for breach of the duty, then the code shall be admissible in evidence. But it will be free for either party to produce reasons for departure from the code. So there is no need to qualify the criminal offence under the duty in Clause 72 as proposed by the amendment. The same argument applies to Amendment No. 232.

There is a further point. The Government's intention is that the proposed code of practice, while setting out a new consistent national standard for HMOs, should not be over-prescriptive concerning what must be done in each case. The aim will be for a goal-based code with recommended action being focused only on the high risk properties. HMOs with a lower risk should be subject to a lighter touch in relation to enforcement procedures. It will not be easy to achieve such an aim, but, if successful, I think many of my noble friend's concerns and those of many landlords will be met.

Finally, Amendment No. 231 requires that local authorities should be required to publicise the duty and advise landlords how they can carry it out. My response again relates to the HMO code of practice which the Government propose to make and which will set out the standards necessary to fulfil the duty. There is specific provision in Clause 74(2)(a) which states that the Secretary of State should only approve a code if he considers that it has been published in such a manner that it has been brought to the attention of those likely to be affected by it. So I can assure my noble friend of two things: first, that when the HMO code of practice is published, arrangements will be put in place for it to be widely publicised; and, secondly, that the landlord's new duty under Clause 72 will not be brought into force until a reasonable time after the code is available so that landlords have time to study it and take the necessary action to improve their properties.

I hope that these assurances are sufficient to persuade my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Gisborough

I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. It will be read by my advisers and we will see where we go from there. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 228 and 229 not moved.]

Lord Dubs had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 230: Page 47, line 29, at end insert— ("( ) The Secretary of State shall take reasonable steps to ensure that—

1. (a) he publicises the duty under this section nationally to persons having control of houses in multiple occupation and to persons managing houses in multiple occupation; and
1694
2. (b) he consults local housing authorities to ensure that they publicise the duty under this section to persons having control of houses in multiple occupation and to persons managing houses in multiple occupation in their districts."").

The noble Lord said: In the light of the assurances that the Minister gave on earlier amendments, I shall not move Amendment No. 230.

[Amendment No. 230 not moved.]

[Amendments Nos. 231 and 232 not moved.]

Clause 72 agreed to.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 233: After Clause 72, insert the following new clause— GAS APPLIANCES: DUTY OF OWNER OF APPLIANCE (". After section 368 of the Housing Act 1985 insert— "Gas appliances: duty of owner of appliance. .—(1) It shall be the duty of the person who owns a gas appliance or any installation pipework, chimney or flue installed in a house in multiple occupation or any part of it let by him, to ensure that a certificate showing safe installation, maintenance and chimney and flue cleaning shall be given to the tenant a reasonable time before he signs the tenancy agreement and every twelve months thereafter during the term of that tenancy. (2) The aforesaid certificate shall specify the name, address and, where it is gas work, the CORGI registration number of the person who did the relevant work and the date the work was done.'"').

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 233 is grouped with Amendment No. 234. Both are in the names of myself and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. The amendments propose new clauses to be inserted in the Housing Act 1985 dealing with gas appliances. They involve in one case the duties of the owner of the appliance and in the other of the person managing or having control of the house in which the appliance is situated.

The first amendment places a duty on the owner of an HMO to provide a prospective tenant with a certificate showing the safe installation and maintenance of gas appliances and of installation pipework, chimneys or flues before a tenancy starts and annually thereafter. This would reverse the current position under the relevant gas safety regulations whereby a tenant can request written information from the landlord, but the regulations are dependent on that request. Subsection (2) provides for the particulars in the certificate and requires the landlord to show that the engineer who checked the appliances was properly qualified to do so.

We have referred, more briefly perhaps than the subject requires, to a number of deaths every year in the home as a result of carbon monoxide poisoning caused by faulty appliances. Many of the deaths occur in private rented accommodation. Of the deaths in private rented accommodation, a disproportionate number—perhaps I may put it that way without seeking again to trade figures with the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough—take place in HMOs.

As I said on an earlier amendment, there have been a number of tragic deaths. Carbon monoxide poisoning is particularly insidious. It is not easy—it may be impossible—to detect the problem and anticipate it.

The Gas Safety (Installation & Use) Regulations 1994 depend on the tenant requesting evidence. As Members of the Committee, in particular the right reverend Prelate, have said, the tenants in properties affected are in the worst possible position to seek such evidence. They do not have the strength that financial means would give them; they do not wish to put their security at risk.

It is late and the seriousness of the position will speak more strongly than I can of the need for these or similar amendments to ensure that there is a better enforced regime. Although I have spoken briefly, I hope that the Committee will accept that that should not be taken to indicate that I do not regard it as a serious matter. I beg to move.

11 p.m.

Lord Dubs

I support Amendments Nos. 233 and 234. It might save the Committee's time if I also speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 235 and 236, which deal with a similar point but relate not to gas appliances but to appliances powered by combustible fuel—that is, wood, oil, gas, peat or solid fuel. The principle is the same as in Amendments Nos. 233 and 234.

Lord Gisborough

I support the principle of the amendment. A great number of deaths are caused by faulty gas appliances. I am advised that it is now possible to have the equivalent of an electrical fuse box in the gas industry. Such a system would be a great asset and would save a lot of lives.

Lord Lucas

We are of one mind with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, except that we wish to see these changes made through the gas safety installation and use regulations. We accept what the noble Baroness said about the weakness of those regulations in requiring tenants to complain. That will be changed. The Health and Safety Commission has agreed to bring forward an urgent amendment on the lines proposed and intends to issue a consultative document in July with the intention of introducing new regulations to take effect around the end of October. I hope that will be sufficient for the noble Baroness.

Lady Hamwee

For once I am very happy to rely on regulations. I am sorry that the matter requires recognition, but glad that the Government have recognised it.

Lord Lucas

Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, since the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, spoke to the following group of amendments, perhaps I might reply to those too.

This is clearly an area of concern. A coal-burning fire does not present the same magnitude of problems as a gas fire generally. Very few of them blow buildings up. Clearly, however, a number of people die every year as a result of the burning of other fuels. We know from government research that that is so. We have some information about the types of fuel and the part of the system that is involved in such accidents. However, we do not know the underlying cause of the deaths—whether it is, for example, poor insulation in the first place, poor maintenance, lack of any maintenance, abuse, or some other cause.

We do not know for sure how many such accidents occur in HMOs or in the wider rented sector; nor do we know whether legislation in this area would be appropriate or effective. The Government will undertake further research to determine the size and nature of the risks. When we have completed that research, we will respond to it appropriately.

Lord Dubs

I thank the Minister for his very helpful reply.

Baroness Hamwee

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 234 to 237 not moved.]

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 238: After Clause 72, insert the following new clause— POWER TO LIMIT NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS IN HOUSE: SUPPLEMENTARY (". In section 354 of the Housing Act 1985, at the end insert— (8) A direction under this section is a local land charge."").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment standing in the names of my noble friend Lord Williams and Elvel and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

The amendment has to do with local land charges and directions that can be made under Section 354 of the Housing Act 1985. If there is a change in ownership, by inserting this stipulation regarding a local land charge, that charge will stay with the premises should there be a new owner. A new landlord would therefore be made fully aware of all legal obligations attaching to the property before such a purchase was made. The new landlord would therefore either have to accept the implications of what was in the local land charge or could decline to purchase the property. In that way there would be a safeguard as to the continuity of this provision when property changed hands from one landlord to another.

Lord Lucas

The noble Lord explained his amendment with great eloquence. I cannot in any way improve on what he said.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 73 [Means of escape from fire]:

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McColl of Dulwich)

If Amendment No. 238A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 239.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 238A: Page 47, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 48 and insert— ("(3) The local housing authority shall consult, and have regard to the views of, the fire authority concerned before exercising any of the powers mentioned in subsection (2) and shall include the views of the fire authority in any notice issued under section 366.").

The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the consultation process with the fire authority is one which recognises the first-hand knowledge and experience of fire officers in all aspects of fire safety and response to fire and other emergencies. If the Minister can give me assurances as to the extent of the consultation, that will be a welcome response to this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas

It goes without saying that we would expect the local authority to take the views of the fire authority on board before taking any action. In view of other circumstances in the property, it may not, however, always be appropriate for the local authority to adopt exactly the solutions recommended by the fire authority; nor could we support them, including the views of the fire authority, in any notice issued under Section 352. Although we do not anticipate many cases where the local authority would serve a notice with different requirements, it could lead to confusion for the recipient if the works required were not exactly the same as those recommended by the fire authority.

Safety is, of course, paramount. We want to ensure that fire authorities are fully aware of the high risk of HMO properties in their areas. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

I understand the point about the difficulty of including the views in notices. However, I was not suggesting that the Government took every point that was made by the fire authority but that they had regard to them, which is not quite the same. However, having heard the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 239: Page 48, line 3, at end insert ("and (b) after "different areas, and" insert— (aa) in particular, shall apply the duty under subsection (2) to houses in multiple occupation which are three or more storeys in height."").

The noble Baroness said: The effect of this amendment is in regard to Section 365 of the 1985 Housing Act. That section gives the Secretary of State the power to specify HMOs towards which local housing authorities have a duty to require that landlords provide adequate means of escape from fire and other fire precautions. The amendment is to provide that all HMOs with three or more storeys would be covered.

I could give to the Committee details of different types of HMOs and houses which would be covered by this provision. I do not believe that I should win Brownie points by reading those details on to the record at this hour. However, I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to explain to the Committee what he has in mind with regard to the scope of the extended duty and the timetable for consultation.

I understand that the Government indicated in another place that they are to undertake research into fire risks in HMOs. Perhaps the Minister can explain to the Committee what timetable would apply to that and whether the research to be undertaken will inform the scope of the extended duty. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas

We have indicated that we would wish to make the duty apply to all HMOs which would be potentially registrable if a local authority were to adopt the department's model registration scheme, providing that the property had three storeys or more. But we want to firm up on the precise coverage of the duty only when the consultation we have promised on this Section 365 order and on our model registration schemes are complete.

Amendment No. 239, if I have understood it correctly, would place a requirement on the face of the legislation to ensure that every HMO with three or more storeys was covered by any new order under Section 365.

We wish to be able to consider excluding such categories as university halls of residence, subject to what may emerge in the consultation. We therefore prefer the freedoms we have under the Bill but quite clearly we are thinking along the same lines as the noble Baroness.

Baroness Hamwee

I do not know whether the Minister can indicate the timing that is likely to apply to the consultation.

Lord Lucas

I do not immediately have any answers as to the timing of the consultation period. It is a matter of prime importance because on it rests the whole HMO scheme. The noble Baroness also asks about the timing of the research. That will start later in the year and will take a year or two as we have to study individual cases.

Baroness Hamwee

I suspect therefore that we shall return to the subject when we see the result of the research. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 73 agreed to.

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 240: After Clause 73, insert the following new clause— WORKS NOTICES: IMPROVEMENT OF ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES (". After section 377 of the Housing Act 1985 insert— "Works notices: improvement of enforcement procedures. 377A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide that a local housing authority shall act as specified in the order before serving a works notice. In this section a "works notice" means a notice under section 352 or 372 (notices requiring the execution of works). (2) An order under this section may provide that the authority—

1. (a) shall as soon as practicable give to the person on whom the works notice is to be served a written notice which satisfies the requirements of subsection (3); and
2. (b) shall not serve the works notice until after the end of such period beginning with the giving of a notice which satisfies the requirements of subsection (3) as may be determined by or under the order.

(3) A notice satisfies the requirements of this subsection if it—

1. (a) states the works which in the authority's opinion should be undertaken, and explains why and within what period;
2. (b) explains the grounds on which it appears to the authority that the works notice might be served;
3. (c) states the type of works notice which is to be served, the consequences of serving it and whether there is a right to make representations before, or a right of appeal against, the serving of it.

(4) An order under this section may also provide that, before the authority serves the works notice on any person, they—

1. (a) shall give to that person a written notice stating—
1. (i) that they are considering serving the works notice and the reasons why they are considering serving the notice; and
2. (ii) that the person may, within a period specified in the written notice, make written representations to them or, if the person so requests, make oral representations to them in the presence of a person determined by or under the order; and
2. (b) shall consider any representations which are duly made and not withdrawn.

(5) An order under this section may in particular—

1. (a) make provision as to the consequences of any failure to comply with a provision made by the order;
2. (b) contain such consequential, incidental, supplementary or transitional provisions and savings as the Secretary of State considers appropriate (including provisions modifying enactments relating to the periods within which proceedings must be brought).

(6) An order under this section—

1. (a) may make different provision with respect to different cases or descriptions of case (including different provision for different areas), and
2. (b) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(7) Nothing in any order under this section shall—

1. (a) preclude a local housing authority from serving a works notice on any person, or from requiring any person to take immediate remedial action to avoid a works notice being served on him, in any case where it appears to them to be necessary to serve such a notice or impose such a requirement; or
2. (b) require such an authority to disclose any information the disclosure of which would be contrary to the public interest".").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 240 I hope to speak to it at slightly less length than the amendment.

This amendment meets a commitment given by David Curry, the housing Minister in another place last November, to reflect the principles of enforcement set out in Section 5 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. It introduces a new clause providing for the Secretary of State to make an order to improve the procedures for enforcement of amenity or safety standards, or management standards under Part XI of the Housing Act 1985. Those new procedures are designed to improve the transparency, fairness and consistency of enforcement processes.

The main effect of a deregulation order made under this clause would be to allow the existing enforcement procedures to be modified so as to require a local authority to give written notice of its intentions to serve an enforcement notice under Sections 352 or 372 of the 1985 Act, and to hear representations before any formal enforcement action in instigated.

The new enforcement procedures will meet the concerns of some HMO landlords who, when faced with a notice under Sections 352 or 372, have no other recourse than to appeal within 21 days to the county court if they do not think the works demanded are necessary or wholly appropriate—a point raised by my noble friend Lord Gisborough. We believe that formal action should always be looked on as a last resort, and by modifying the procedures of enforcement action in the way provided for by an order under this clause it will help local authorities to reach sensible decisions in consultation with HMO landlords, and ensure that formal enforcement action is only taken where absolutely necessary. I realise that in many areas local authorities have already adopted such a procedure, and have built up good working relations with HMO landlords. This amendment will ensure that such enforcement practice is adopted universally.

We are aware, however, that there are occasions when a local authority needs to take urgent action to protect the safety or welfare of the occupants of a property. Nothing in an order made under this new clause will prevent an authority from taking immediate enforcement action in any case where they believe it is necessary.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 241: After Clause 73, insert the following new clause— CONTROL ORDERS: SUPPLEMENTARY (".—(1) In section 379 of the Housing Act 1985 (making of control order), at the end insert— (5) Within eight weeks of the date of service of the control order, the local housing authority shall serve on the dispossessed proprietor notice of their intention to—

1. (a) retain the control order;
2. (b) revoke the control order; or
3. (c) make a compulsory purchase order.

(6) Where the authority have exercised their powers under subsection (5) above, the dispossessed proprietor may appeal within twenty-one days to the county court on the grounds that the decision of the local authority was unreasonable. (2) In subsection (2) of section 384 of the Housing Act 1985 (appeal against control order), for the words "local authority serve a copy of a management scheme relating to the house in accordance with section 386, or such longer period as the authority may in writing allow"substitute the words "control order was made and served". (3) For section 386 of the Housing Act 1985 (duty to prepare management scheme), substitute— "Management accounts etc. 386.—(1) After a control order has been made, the local housing authority shall maintain management accounts which record income and expenditure in respect of the property. (2) The authority shall balance such accounts at six monthly intervals, and at the point of revocation of the control order, and shall pay any surpluses to the dispossessed proprietor. (3) In the event of any deficit on an account, the local housing authority shall seek payment from the dispossessed proprietor and shall have the powers conferred by Schedule 10 to this Act where accounts are not settled. (4) Section 389 of the Housing Act 1985 (compensation payable to dispossessed proprietor) shall cease to have effect. (5) In Schedule 13 to the Housing Act 1985, Part I (management schemes) and Part II (payment of compensation to dispossessed proprietor) shall cease to have effect. (6) In Part III of Schedule 13 to the Housing Act 1985, for paragraph 16(1) substitute— 16.—(1) When a control order ceases to have effect, a final balance shall be struck in the management accounts. (2) Where such balance is—

1. (a) in surplus, it shall be paid to the dispossessed proprietor, and
2. (b) in deficit, it shall be recoverable from the dispossessed proprietor in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 10 to this Act."

(7) In Part III of Schedule 13 to the Housing Act 1985, for paragraph 18 substitute— 18. If a control order is revoked by the county court on an appeal against the order, the local housing authority shall strike a final balance in the management accounts and shall deal with such surpluses or deficits as may exist as set out in paragraph 16. (8) In Part IV of Schedule 13 to the Housing Act 1985, for paragraph 22 substitute— 22. The provisions of this Part of this Schedule apply where the local housing authority make a control order with respect to a house, and within eight weeks of the making of that order determine to make a compulsory purchase order for the acquisition of the house. (9) In Part IV of Schedule 13 to the Housing Act 1985, paragraph 23 shall cease to have effect. (10) In Part IV of Schedule 13 to the Housing Act 1985, for paragraph 25 substitute— 25.—(1) Where a control order ceases to have effect by virtue of paragraph 24, the local housing authority shall pay to the dispossessed proprietor such surplus on management account as may have accrued. (2) Where any deficit on account exists, the provisions of Schedule I0 to this Act relating to recovery of expenses shall apply. (11) In Part IV of Schedule 13 to the Housing Act 1985, paragraph 26 shall cease to have effect.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 241 in the name of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, deals with control orders, which are the strongest powers available to local authorities to deal with dangerous houses in multiple occupation. Because those powers are particularly strong ones, the amendment concerns itself with a number of points of detail. The difficulty is that there have been changes to the rented sector over the years and one of the areas of particular concern has been houses in multiple occupation.

Perhaps I may set out briefly what the amendment will do. It introduces a new requirement for a local authority to reach a decision within eight weeks of making a control order on its future proposals for what it wants to do with the property. Secondly, it will simplify procedures by substituting a requirement for the local authority to make a management scheme with a requirement merely to maintain management accounts. Thirdly, it will streamline the final accounting methods when the new management accounts are closed. Fourthly, it will streamline the arrangements when a control order is ended following confirmation of a compulsory purchase order. The amendment helps in the way in which control orders are exercised by local authorities. I beg to move.

11.15 p.m.

Lord Lucas

I have listened with interest to the noble Lord's arguments. I am aware that the current system seems rather bureaucratic and can be complex to administer. The Committee will appreciate, however, that the power to make a control order is the most drastic power available to a local authority. We think it is correct that it should require careful consideration before it is embarked on and fastidious handling while the order is in place. After all, a local authority is in effect confiscating an asset and running it on behalf of the owner. Control orders are not often used but they provide an essential last resort.

The noble Lord's amendment suggests radical changes to the control order provisions. First, it seeks to abolish the requirement on a local authority to prepare a management scheme shortly after it makes a control order. Under existing legislation, as part of a management scheme, a local authority must list the works it intends to carry out to the property and the owner has a right to appeal if he considers that those are excessive or unreasonable. Removing this right of appeal would be unfair to an HMO owner who, in the long run, will have to pay for any works which are carried out.

The amendment also removes the automatic right of the owner to receive an amount of compensation every three months. Surpluses, to which the amendment refers, are most unlikely to accrue if there are major works. The owner may well have obligations such as a mortgage to keep up on the property. It would be totally unacceptable, therefore, to remove his source of income when the authority is not prepared to buy the property. In the long run, a local authority can still recover compensation payments when the control order ceases.

For these reasons we are unable to accept the major elements of the noble Lord's amendment. There is one aspect, however, about which we are happy to think further. I refer to the provision to stretch the time limit from four to eight weeks, which would give the local authority a more sensible deadline in which to decide what is the best way forward. We should like to reflect on this point. I hope that, with that very small crumb of comfort and the recognition that giving in to three Opposition amendments in a day without a murmur is an extraordinary event, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Dubs

I hope it is the merit of the Opposition amendments rather than the quantity which influences the Minister's reaction to them. I should like to read in Hansard what the Minister said and reflect more fully on his response to the amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 74 [Codes of practice]:

Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 242: Page 48, line 43, at end insert— ("Codes of practice: disputes. 395B. Where the Secretary of State has under section 395A approved a code or codes of practice giving guidance on the requirements of subsection (1A) of section 352 or on the duties referred to in section 353A if—

1. (a) a dispute arises between a local housing authority and the person having control of a house subject to the provisions of such a code or codes—
1. (i) as to whether the house complies with the requirements of the code of practice, or
2. (ii) as to whether works being carried out or proposed to be carried out will enable the house to achieve compliance with the code; and
2. (b) the local housing authority has given notice that it is minded to issue a notice under section 352, the matter may, at the request of the person having control, be referred to the Secretary of State for determination.".").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 242 relates to the proposed code of practice on standards in HMOs. My amendment proposes that there should be an appeal mechanism where disputes arise between landlord and local authority over interpretations of the code. As the Bill is currently drafted, if there were a dispute over the requirements of the code, there is no mechanism for resolving that dispute other than the local authority serving a Section 352 notice requiring works, and the landlord appealing through the county court against that notice.

This strikes me as being particularly unsatisfactory. County courts are ill-equipped to deal with, and make judgments on, technical matters relating to building standards. My amendment to the Bill seeks to ensure that there is a simple, quick and cost-effective way of resolving disputes between landlords and local authorities over the interpretation of the code. Planning applications, building controls and fair rent determinations all have appeal procedures that do not involve the court system.

I know that organisations as diverse as the British Property Federation and the National Federation of Housing Associations favour an alternative approach to dealing with disputes of this type.

In my amendment I have suggested that these disputes should be resolved by reference to the Secretary of State. Such an appeal system would encourage a fair, reasonable and consistent interpretation of the code both within individual authorities and between different authorities. Moreover, the very fact that an appeal procedure was in place would encourage both landlords and local authorities to have a constructive and co-operative approach to the implementation of the code of practice and the improvement of standards in HMOs in their areas.

It may be that an appeal to the Secretary of State is not the most appropriate mechanism. The National Federation of Housing Associations has suggested that the model appeals mechanism introduced by the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 should be used in respect of the code of practice and that might provide a suitable alternative appeal mechanism. It would also be consistent with the Government's original proposal that the local authorities' powers should be implemented in line with the model enforcement regime recommended by Section 5 of that Act. This proposal seems, however, not now to feature in the Bill.

Whichever mechanism is deemed most appropriate, I would urge the Government to give very careful consideration to the possibility of approving an appeals system that does not involve the courts. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas

As I believe my noble friend Lord Gisborough has realised, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is not at all amused at the thought of having to spend his time in the way that my noble friend suggests that he should. My right honourable friend believes, and I think quite rightly, that his input should be restricted to the code of practice that he will have to approve using powers under Clause 74. That code will be evidential in court proceedings. We believe that it is appropriate for the court to decide on individual cases which are brought before it. With that thin comfort I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Gisborough

I thank my noble friend for that answer which does not answer the fact that planning applications and building controls do not involve the court system. However, it is too late to dispute it now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 74 agreed to.

Clause 75 agreed to.

Clause 76 [Minor amendments]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 242A: Page 49, line 30, at end insert ("or unless the individual is to take up residence in order to care for a person residing in it who requires such assistance.").

The noble Baroness said: Clause 76 deals with Section 355(1) of the Housing Act 1985, which is a direction limiting the number of occupants. This amendment proposes that in the case of a carer who comes into the premises to care for someone who already resides there and who needs assistance, the carer is deemed not to exist for the purposes of calculating the number of occupants. I imagine that the number of times when this situation arises must be very limited indeed and these matters are always something of a balance. It has been put to me that in this case the interests of the individual requiring care should override the general proposition. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas

We feel that if premises are suitable for only 10 people then they are suitable for only 10 people. If one introduced an eleventh to care for one of the others the person being cared for might gain some net benefit, but only at the expense of other residents' convenience and, more importantly, safety. We believe that the limits on the population in HMOs are important and should be respected, although we understand the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness.

Baroness Hamwee

I believe that this is a matter of balance, and sometimes it is a difficult balance. I will not pursue the matter at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 76 agreed.

Clause 77 agreed.

[Amendment No.242B not moved.]

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.