| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Allen: To put the matter in perspective, we are not speaking of random searches of council estates and picking on people. People who have got to this stage have probably been highly disruptive, disturbed the neighbourhood and made their neighbours' life hell. They have already had at least one chance. The problem is not that the process is too fast, but that it may be too protracted. Witnesses who have come forward, often at great expense, bolstered by housing officers, police officers and so on, may be asked to come to court two or three times, have their windows put in, have acid poured on their car and so on. We have lived with such problems, and I am glad that my hon. Friend is moving swiftly to tackle them.
Keith Hill: It is beginning to sound like a love-in between me and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North. I entirely agree with his observations, which are as perceptive as ever. As he says, we have all been there, as constituency Members of Parliament. In my experience as a constituency Member of Parliament, the landlord is usually extremely reluctant to move to the measures that I described.
Of course, the landlord is aware of the implications of the ending of any form of tenancy and the implications for the family, but the procedure will prevent precipitate action to move towards eviction. It will offer—I reiterate that in my experience this is the desire of most housing managers—the opportunity for a process of rehabilitation to try to bring the individuals concerned back into civic society. That is the name of the game. We need to restore a sense of civic society, and on occasion we must do that by sanction.
These are reasonable proposals. They meet the wishes expressed overwhelmingly by the social landlord sector in consultation. The Government have no hesitation in moving amendments Nos. 12 to 20 and in urging Opposition Members to withdraw amendments Nos. 75 and 61.
Mr. Paice: I shall briefly refer to the Government amendments, before dealing with the two that we tabled, to which the Minister devoted some time. Government amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14 and the consequential amendments, as the hon. Gentleman said, are draconian, but they are right and wholly supportable. It is necessary to provide for those injunctions. I will not detain the House further on those, except to reiterate our support.
I welcome Government amendment No. 15, because as the Minister said, it clarifies who is a landlord. The hon. Gentleman referred to the undertaking given by the now Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), to go away and consider the points that I made in Committee concerning the three-year period. The question that I raised was not whether that period was right or wrong; it had much more to do with the issue with which the amendment deals—whether there were three years still to run. By making it clear that the period was initially three years and that there is no such period still to run, which is what the Bill currently says, the Minister has dealt with the issue. I welcome the amendment, which is obviously another example of the success of my powers of persuasion, for which I shall take credit.
On amendments Nos. 75 and 61, in the spirit of good will, I say to the Minister that it is a calumny to suggest that the Opposition are trying to undermine the legislation. He is absolutely right to say that antisocial behaviour is a major problem in respect of tenants of social landlords. All of us have encountered that problem to a greater or lesser extent in our constituencies. The hon. Gentleman is also right that action needs to be taken, and there is no difference between my party and the Government on that need, so we do not intend or seek to undermine the Bill.
The point of the amendments is as follows. As the Bill is currently drafted, and as the Minister obviously wishes to maintain it, once a demotion order is achieved, a landlord will be able to serve proceedings for possession. He will have to give his reasons, and the Minister rightly said—this is set out in the Bill—that the tenant can seek a review. However, he went on to speak about review panels, independence and so on, none of which feature in the Bill. We must make a judgment on the basis of what the Bill contains. As I read it, in the hands of a landlord who wishes to be unscrupulous, a demotion order could effectively be an eviction order, and there is virtually nothing to prevent a landlord from moving from a demotion order straight to eviction.
All that we are seeking to achieve in the amendments is to provide the second chance to which the Minister and indeed the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) referred, and which we endorse. When a tenant of a social landlord allows or commits antisocial
behaviour, they should be hit with a hard sanction, and we accept that demotion orders are a tough sanction. However, they should be given a chance to learn as a result of the action that is taken and not commit such behaviour again, and it appears that the Bill does not currently provide that second chance. All that we are seeking is to ensure that if the landlord wishes to go for possession, he must do so because the tenant has taken no notice of the initial sanction that the demotion order represents.That is the simple gist of our amendments and the reason why we have tabled them. I do not want to undermine the Bill and I certainly want landlords to be able to take action against tenants who continue to allow or commit unsocial behaviour. However, I do not want to give free licence to the recognised chance of unscrupulous social landlords using the provisions in a way that neither the Minister nor I wish them to be used.
Matthew Green: I shall try to be brief.
The Liberal Democrats reluctantly accept that the Government were right to table Government amendment No. 12 and the other Government amendments, but I should like to reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). Under the Bill as it is currently framed, a couple with an unruly teenage son who has been behaving antisocially may end up with a demoted tenancy, but if the son leaves home and the couple get into rent arrears because one of them has lost a job or for some other reason, they can be fast-tracked for eviction under the demoted tenancy because of those arrears, despite the fact that the problem in respect of which they were given the demoted tenancy has gone completely.
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire was right to make that point, which we have also tried to raise, although I accept it has been made in the Conservative amendments. I hope that the Minister will address the issue and ensure that when somebody is evicted after a demoted tenancy has been issued, it is for the same reason in respect of which they were given the demoted tenancy in the first place.
Keith Hill: Let me say to the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for Ludlow (Matthew Green) that I understand the seriousness of the points that they make. I shall certainly bear in mind the observation made by the hon. Member for Ludlow about the consistency of the basis of a termination of a demoted tenancy.
4 pm
Although I understand the concerns about the precipitate action of unscrupulous landlords against tenants, broadly speaking, in my experience, unscrupulous landlords are more often to be found in the private sector than in the social housing sector, but that is a matter for other legislation. The effect of the amendments would be to take cases back to the courts, with all the disadvantages in terms of witnesses, delay and cost implications for the local authority.
I hope that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire will take it from me that the Government intend that the rules governing the termination of demoted tenancies should be those that apply to the termination of introductory tenancies. The regulations will mirror those provisions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment and that the House will support the Government's amendments.
It being one and three quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day.]
Amendments made: No. 13, in page 11, line 6, leave out '153C' and insert '153D'.
No. 14, in page 11, line 27, leave out from 'landlord' to end of line 29 and insert
'for the purposes of section 153D'.
No. 15, in page 11, line 40, leave out from 'lease' to end of line 41 and insert
'which (when granted) was for a term of not less than three years'.
No. 16, in page 12, line 7, after '153C(3)', insert 'or 153D(4)'.
No. 17, in page 12, line 12, after '153C(3)', insert 'or 153D(4)'.
No. 18, in page 12, line 14, after '153C(3)', insert 'or 153D(4)'.
No. 19, in page 12, line 17, after '153C(3)', insert 'or 153D(4)'.
No. 20, in page 12, line 19, after '153C(3)', insert 'or 153D(4)'.—[Mr. Heppell.]
Amendments made: No. 21, in page 13, line 17, leave out 'immoral or'.
No. 22, in page 14, line 18, leave out 'immoral or'.—[Mr. Heppell.]
Clause 17
Amendment made: No. 23, in page 16, line 24, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Heppell.]
Clause 18
Amendments made: No. 1, in page 16, line 32, leave out from 'permanently' to end of line 34.
No. 41, in page 17, line 8, after 'attend' and insert 'a'.
No. 42, in page 17, line 8, leave out 'sessions' and insert 'programme'.—[Mr. Heppell.]
Clause 19
Amendments made: No. 43, in page 17, line 37, leave out 'sessions' and insert 'programme'.
No. 44, in page 17, line 42, at end insert—
'(6) A counselling or guidance programme which a parent is required to attend by virtue of subsection (4)(b) may be or include a residential course but only if the court is satisfied that the following two conditions are fulfilled.
(7) The first condition is that the attendance of the parent at a residential course is likely to be more effective than his attendance at a nonresidential course in improving the behaviour of the pupil.
(8) The second condition is that any interference with family life which is likely to result from the attendance of the parent at a residential course is proportionate in all the circumstances.'—[Mr. Heppell.]
Clause 20
Amendment made: No. 45, in page 18, line 16, leave out from 'make' to end of line 18 and insert
'provision as to how the costs associated with the requirements of parenting orders under section 19 (including the costs of providing counselling or guidance programmes) are to be borne'.—[Mr. Heppell.]
Clause 23
Amendment made: No. 35, in page 22, leave out line 18.—[Mr. Heppell.]
Clause 24
Amendment made: No. 46, in page 22, line 38, after 'attend' insert 'a'.—[Mr. Heppell.]
Clause 25
Amendment made: No. 49, in page 23, line 25, at end insert—
'(6) A counselling or guidance programme which a parent is required to attend by virtue of subsection (4)(b) may be or include a residential course but only if the court is satisfied that the following two conditions are fulfilled.
(7) The first condition is that the attendance of the parent at a residential course is likely to be more effective than his attendance at a nonresidential course in preventing the child or young person from engaging in further criminal conduct or further antisocial behaviour.
(8) The second condition is that any interference with family life which is likely to result from the attendance of the parent at a residential course is proportionate in all the circumstances.'—[Mr. Heppell.]
Clause 28
Amendments made: No. 36, in page 24, leave out line 22.
No. 37, in page 24, line 25, at end insert—
'(2) In section 38(4) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37) (meaning of "youth justice services") after paragraph (e) insert—
"(ee) the performance by youth offending teams and members of youth offending teams of functions under sections 24 to 26 of the Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003,".'.—[Mr. Heppell.]
New Clause 8—Parenting Orders under the 1998 Act—
'(1) Section 8 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsections (4) and (5) substitute—
"(4) A parenting order is an order which requires the parent—
(a) to comply, for a period not exceeding twelve months, with such requirements as are specified in the order, and
(b) subject to subsection (5) below, to attend, for a concurrent period not exceeding three months, such counselling or guidance programme as may be specified in directions given by the responsible officer.
(5) A parenting order may, but need not, include such a requirement as is mentioned in subsection (4)(b) above in any case where a parenting order under this section or any other enactment has been made in respect of the parent on a previous occasion."
(3) After subsection (7) insert—
"(7A) A counselling or guidance programme which a parent is required to attend by virtue of subsection (4)(b) above may be or include a residential course but only if the court is satisfied—
(a) that the attendance of the parent at a residential course is likely to be more effective than his attendance at a nonresidential course in preventing any such repetition or, as the case may be, the commission of any such further offence, and
(b) that any interference with family life which is likely to result from the attendance of the parent at a residential course is proportionate in all the circumstances.".'.
—[Mr. Heppell.]
Brought up, read the First and Second Times, and added to the Bill.
Clause 29
Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey): I beg to move amendment No. 82, in page 24, line 28, leave out Clause 29.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |