---

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate our concern about the capacity of local authorities to deal with these matters. He seems to be saying that those local authorities that do not in any case have many HMOs will find it very easy to adopt such a scheme, but the point of such legislation is that it should apply to places where the risk is greatest and the problem is at its height. What worries me is that there are insufficient resources and training for such duties, and we have had no assurance from the Minister that they will be provided.

Matthew Green: I share some of those concerns, but whereas ours is a practical amendment, the Government's provision simply gives everybody too much time. Five years is too long a period in which to allow such properties to be inspected and brought into the regime; indeed, the Conservative amendment reflects that by calling for a period of three years. We have tried to introduce a double-lock system, whereby inspection should take place within 12 months unless a strong case can be made for doing otherwise. These are different ways of approaching the same problem, but it is clear that the Government's proposed regulation is too lax for us to agree to—a fact that must cause Labour Back Benchers concern.

I welcome Government amendment No. 32, which adds sex offences to the list of offences that local authorities will consider in deciding whether a licence applicant is a fit and proper person. This issue was raised in Committee, the Government undertook to look at it and they have rightly tabled an amendment on it. It is clearly unacceptable for a sex offender to be the manager of a property containing numerous potentially vulnerable people.

Amendment No. 107 was designed to force the Government to discuss once again what they meant by the landlord controlling the actions of the tenant, but the Government have tabled their own amendment No. 33, which clarifies the licence holder's obligation, restricting it to "anti-social behaviour" by a tenant or visitor—and only to the extent that the landlord is "reasonably" able to do so. We welcome that, as we highlighted the matter in Committee. I shall spend no more time on amendment No. 107 because it has been largely dealt with by Government amendment No. 33. The Minister will not need to respond, which should save him a little time.

Amendment No. 108 deals with an issue that I attempted to raise in Committee, but we all got a bit lost—perhaps that is the politest way of putting it—so I shall have another go. It is a probing amendment, designed to deal with the problem that the "no rent payable" sanction against unlicensed landlords in clause 72 could result in the eviction of tenants. The stipulation that section 21 of the Housing Act 1998 shall not apply prevents landlords from using the accelerated possession procedure to evict tenants as a result of those sanctions.

The current provisions do not reflect the reality faced by tenants on low incomes with no security of tenure, who are unable to enforce their housing rights without
 
11 May 2004 : Column 195
 
risking eviction. HMOs represent a scarce housing resource and clause 72 could result in existing tenants being made homeless. Tenants with a shorthold tenancy will simply face possession action by their landlord if they attempt to enforce the "no rent payable" provision on unlicensed properties. In practice, many tenants will choose not to risk losing their homes and will simply continue to pay the rent. Those tenants on housing benefit will face withdrawal of their benefit, leaving them unable to pay their rent other than by dipping into what limited savings they might have. They risk homelessness if their landlord brings their shorthold tenancy to an end.

The Select Committee heard from Brent private tenants' rights group, which raised that very point, as the Chairman, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), will probably recall. It said:

"Shorthold tenants will have no more power to refuse to pay the rent than they have power to exercise any other housing right. For housing benefit claimants, the situation is tragic, because their benefit will cease, and they will lose their homes at the earliest opportunity. Many of these tenants will be in priority need and will have no option but present as homeless to the local authority."

The Local Government Association raised similar concerns.

Sarah Teather (Brent, East) (LD): I endorse my hon. Friend's point. My constituency has the highest number of houses in multiple occupancy anywhere in the country and the work done by the group that my hon. Friend mentioned is second to none in raising awareness of the issue.

Matthew Green: I thank my hon. Friend. She and the group are quite right to bring that matter to the House's attention.

When the Select Committee reported, it concluded:

"We are concerned that the 'no rent payable' provisions could have adverse consequences for tenants, potentially leading to their eviction. If the Government plans to retain these provisions, the final version of the Bill must include adequate safeguards so that tenants cannot be evicted because their landlord is unlicensed."

That was clearly recognised by the Select Committee, and the Minister has not dealt satisfactorily with it. It is a relatively technical point and not of great political significance, so I hope that the Minister will have a closer look at the effects of the provision and agree to amendments in the other place.

Our amendments Nos. 122 and 123 deal with issues that were not raised in Committee. They would amend the definition of hostel to include "short-term hostel". We define such a hostel as

"a building . . . which offers temporary accommodation and is occupied wholly or mainly by visitors from outside the UK".

It is primarily designed to deal with back-packers' hostels, in which there have been some hideous examples of fires in other parts of the world. We are concerned that the Bill does not cover those hostels. I hope that the Minister will either accept these amendments or present some alternatives. Such a provision could help to deal with the circumstances when people brought into the country by gangmasters have to live in very cramped conditions. I hope that the
 
11 May 2004 : Column 196
 
Government will accept some such amendment on the grounds that it would strengthen their powers in that respect.

2.45 pm

I welcome Government amendment No. 58, which repeats an amendment that I moved in Committee. It would delete the word "woman's" from the term "woman's refuge". I was never certain why the Government were restricting the provision to women's refuges, when there are also battered men. After amendment, the definition of a refuge is a place where people may stay if they have left their homes owing to physical or mental violence or threats of such from their spouse or cohabitee. I am glad to see such a unisex solution. As I said, I was surprised that the Government had been so sexist in their original drafting, which I am sure was just an aberration.

I hope that we will vote on amendment No. 124, which would remove from the Bill the exemption of student halls of residence. It is supported by the National Union of Students, and the Government have not, frankly, argued a strong case why halls of residence should not be licensed. Indeed, in their 1999 consultation, the Government did not propose to exclude halls of residence, on the grounds that there was

"some evidence of unacceptable standards in these sectors."

That is stated in the Government's own consultation document. Subsequently, however, it has been suggested that public sector bodies, including universities, might be exempted from licensing, because they were under "some degree of control" or could be "expected to behave responsibly". In my opinion, that is not sufficient.

I would like to raise one particular issue that was not debated in Committee. It came to my attention when I visited Manchester students' union. There, the university uses PFI schemes to deliver student halls of residence. They are run by private companies, but appear to be exempt because they are "university halls of residence". Yet they are being run for profit by outside companies. At the very least, I hope that the Minister will ensure that the definition does not exclude those properties from the licensing of HMOs, as would appear to be the case. The universities certainly believe that they are exempt from the legislation.

Andrew Bennett: Let someone else get in to the debate!

Matthew Green: I shall move swiftly on. The Chairman of the Select Committee will note that many amendments have been tabled in my name.

Government amendment No. 67, which deals with student buildings, would have the opposite effect to our amendment No. 124 and would make the position worse.

Our amendment No. 95 is a drafting amendment that accompanies new clause 28, which introduces a general duty of care on all landlords of houses in multiple occupation as defined by clause 213. It is supported by Shelter and the Select Committee. The matter was not raised in the Committee and I hope that the Minister will explain why the Government do not accept it.
 
11 May 2004 : Column 197
 

Our new clause 25 would introduce the possibility of a code of practice for landlords and I know that some landlord associations support the idea. Having such a code of practice is a means of delivering many of our objectives, including the licensing of HMOs, without overburdening regulation.

Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that our remaining amendments—Nos. 120, 121, 96, 97 and 98—are drafting amendments that accompany new clause 28 and can be dealt with accordingly. I would have liked to explain some of the amendments further, but I have already incurred the wrath of the Select Committee Chairman, who is the victim of the Government's own programme motion as much as anything else. I will leave it there, but I repeat that I want to press amendment No. 124 to a vote.

---