| Anti-social Behaviour Bill
|
|
Mr. Paice: Obviously this is what the Minister came for, and over the next few hours we will be considering the section of the Bill dealing with housing and antisocial behaviour by tenants. The first group contains four amendments that I tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath, and one that we tabled jointly with the Liberal Democrats. The remaining amendments were tabled by the Liberal Democrats, so I will not address those in detail. The main issue is one of consistency in the application of the legislation. I believe it to be necessary—others may take a different view—to put into statute a measure to deal with antisocial behaviour by tenants, and I am therefore not opposed to the principle of what the Government are trying to do. However, I also believe that such measures should be applied consistently. It has been argued that such legislation is not necessary, or that existing legislation is adequate to deal with antisocial behaviour. Many hon. Members will have heard quoted the example of Manchester, where the housing authorities are able to use existing legislation to deal satisfactorily with antisocial behaviour. I do not, however, oppose the principle of introducing legislation, despite its controversial nature. Our amendments are designed to introduce into the Bill an element of consistency and reasonableness, which I believe to be lacking. Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 relate to the matter of consistency. The clause requires all social landlords to publish a policy on antisocial behaviour. A vast number of commentators have argued that requiring landlords to publish a policy does not in itself achieve anything. It does not impose a duty on them to do anything about it, but simply to publish a policy. However, I accept that publishing a policy would be a significant step forward. It does not impose any obligation to enforce that policy and, clearly, if it is not enforced, it will quickly come into disrepute. However, there needs to be some consistency within a locality.
3 pmIn many local authority areas there are registered social landlords, housing associations and local Column Number: 210 authority landlords, and sometimes they share the ownership of developments. Several housing associations may have adjoining properties, and they need a consistent approach to the problem of tenants' antisocial behaviour. However, nothing in the clause will encourage consistency.Amendment No. 96 would require each housing authority to publish guidance on antisocial behaviour in social housing in its area and guidance on procedures for dealing with it. Amendment No. 97 would require the landlords, in preparing their policy, to have regard to the guidance issued by the housing authority, and that is a clear step forward. There are already proposals that the Secretary of State should be involved in the case of local authorities and housing action trusts, and RSLs would have to comply with guidance from the relevant authority. That is an attempt to address the matter, but it introduces a degree of inconsistency because there will be different sets of guidance. I do not know why the Secretary of State has to be involved, but the guidance in any local authority area should be consistent. The obligation should be on the local authority to produce the guidance, so that however many RSLs are within the area they must have regard to it. Why do the Government want to do it differently? Amendment No. 98 would require all tenants to be given a copy of the policy and procedures. The Minister may argue that that is covered in the clause, but it is not. It is important to amend clause 12 to ensure that the landlord is obliged to provide all tenants, not just those who request it, with a copy of the policy and procedures, not just out of courtesy but because tenants could not claim ignorance if they were later accused of transgressing the policy and procedures. As I said, amendment No. 192 is a probing amendment. Some guidance is necessary, but subsection (7) will lead to confusion and it should be dealt with as described in amendments Nos. 96 and 97. We are more than happy about the joint amendment No. 235, which relates to the important matter of monitoring and recording complaints. If a landlord is to go to court to seek a demoted tenancy he will need such information. It is therefore logical that the Bill should include the obligation to record the number and nature of complaints and the action taken to deal with them in order to justify a subsequent claim for a demoted tenancy. Those are my reasons for tabling the amendments. It would be absurd for tenants in adjoining properties under different landlords to be covered by different procedures. The amendments address the issue of consistency in the application of the measure in a local housing authority area. If there is a better way of achieving that aim, so be it; I am always open to be persuaded. Matthew Green (Ludlow): I welcome the Minister to his first active engagement with the Committee. The Liberal Democrats tabled a series of amendments, a joint amendment has been discussed, Column Number: 211 and I shall deal briefly with the Conservative amendments in a moment.Amendment No. 134 would ensure that tenants were consulted before the landlord adopted the procedures, which is sensible because involving tenants in drawing up the procedures may give them a greater sense of ownership of them and a feeling that they are more relevant. The tenants may want more stringent procedures than those that their housing association or council propose. Housing associations and councils often have tenant groups that can act as consultation groups. Such a requirement may not be needed in the Bill, but it is at least best practice, and I would welcome the Minister's confirmation of that. Amendment No. 135 is designed to ensure that the landlord takes a more proactive approach when dealing with antisocial behaviour, rather than dealing only with its consequences. It would place on landlords the obligation to help to resolve disputes and to reduce antisocial behaviour to a reasonable level, as outlined in their policy, not just to deal with its occurrence. Amendment No. 213 would add two new paragraphs, (c) and (d), to subsection (2). It would ensure the inclusion of prevention, support and rehabilitation in the antisocial behaviour policies and procedures that social landlords are required to publish under the clause. It would also ensure that behavioural problems are tackled more effectively, and that tenancies are sustained through the provision of appropriate support, rehabilitation and resettlement services. I thank Shelter for providing much of the information for the amendment. Proactive and imaginative schemes for dealing with antisocial tenants have been very successful in certain parts of the country. This is a chance for councils or housing associations to work effectively with the tenants, and we do not want it to be missed by rushing through to the next stage of a demoted tenancy. That is the thrust of the amendment. Amendment No. 136 is similar to Conservative amendment No. 98, but would go down a different route by inserting a new paragraph (c) into subsection (6), so that a copy of a landlord's policy and procedure would have to be sent to all tenants. There are various ways of expressing that. The Minister may say that this is best practice and that it will be included in the guidance. I hope that he will at least say that it is best practice. I would have liked it to be included in the Bill. Amendment No. 137 would insert a new paragraph at the end of subsection (6) and encourage landlords, when reviewing their antisocial behaviour policies, to consult other authorities and organisations with experience in this field, so that they are not merely writing those off their own bat. There would also be consultation with the public. After all, the thrust of the Bill is to protect the public from antisocial behaviour, so one hopes that they will have some say in the drafting of the guidance. Again, whether the amendment's wording is right remains to be seen, Column Number: 212 but it would ensure that there was greater consultation with regard to antisocial behaviour.Amendments Nos. 214 and 215 also have the support of Shelter. They would ensure that there was a consistent multi-agency approach to tackling antisocial behaviour, with adherence to the work of relevant agencies and strategies across each local authority. Amendment No. 214 would make the landlord have regard to the homelessness strategy of the local housing authority, to the crime and disorder strategy and to the duties and powers under the Children Act 1989. Amendment No. 215 would support amendment No. 214. Some of that may be expected to happen anyway, but we should like to hear from the Minister precisely how the Government would ensure that it happened. As I said, those strong amendments were tabled with a lot of help from Shelter. Amendment No. 235 is the joint amendment. We heard about it from the Conservative spokesman. It would simply ensure that the landlord also recorded occurrences of antisocial behaviour. That makes a lot of sense; if a case went to court, such information would be helpful in a number of instances. It might seem as if many of these amendments would impose extra duties on, for instance, housing associations, but we have consulted associations as to whether they would be onerous, and many of them carry out most of these duties already. The amendments would ensure that we bring some of the other bodies up to the standard of the best associations, or councils if there is still council housing. As I said, the duties are clearly not too onerous, because many associations are fulfilling all of them already. We support Conservative amendments Nos. 96 and 97. The Conservatives have done the Committee a service by proposing that the local authority publish guidance, which could be taken into account, as we have heard, to establish a level playing field. Amendment No. 98 is broadly the same as our amendment No. 136; it just deals with the issue differently. I, too, am interested to hear from the Minister why the Secretary of State needs so many powers.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 13 May 2003 |
