---

Baroness Maddock: Could the Minister indicate whether, if the regime is successful and works well, after a while the Government will consider widening it to some of the properties that we know are also a problem and also house vulnerable people?

Baroness Andrews: We have discretionary scope for additional licensing, and selective licensing that can also be applied under specific circumstances. So it is not as if we were simply looking at one regime. In the monitoring process we shall consider whether there are things that we have missed, along with looking at the effectiveness of what we are doing. We drew the line at houses of three storeys occupied by five persons. The noble Baroness referred to the consultation, and a great deal of discussion went into making that the distinction, because these are the highest risk HMOs across the field of raising standards and pose the greatest management challenges.

In that context, perhaps I could talk briefly about the question that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, about amenities and the landlord. I am sure that she knows, in the context of the debate on washbasins, bathrooms and hygienic facilities, there were two sorts of arguments being put—either that the original definition of the requirement, that it should apply to all HMOs, should be maintained, or that it should be restricted to a smaller number that met the licensing standards. What happened in the interval
 
16 May 2006 : Column GC76
 
between 2004 and 2005 and the release of the consultation document was that, having started off with the notion that the regime should apply, as the previous guidance did, to all HMOs, we agreed after discussion and consultation that it was better applied to those houses that were licensable and had five or more tenants in them. We narrowed the scope so that it was consistent with the guidance. That was done because we believed that larger houses with larger numbers of people were the ones where there was the greatest pressure on resources—bathrooms, toilets and washbasins—and therefore by bringing shared houses within the scope of HMOs, as we have done in that definition, we are providing what we need where we need it.

5 pm

The counter-argument is that it is still draconian for the landlord. We have narrowed the scope and made clear that local authorities will have discretion to allow landlords time to make the changes. Licences will not be withheld because landlords cannot put a washbasin in in the next fortnight. We are allowing a considerable time for landlords to make the necessary adjustments. As a housing Minister, I have seen the speed of construction and the way that bathrooms seem to be able to be modified and changed quite quickly these days. There is a range of new equipment that goes into bathrooms of different sizes. Providing those amenities is less onerous than it might have been some years ago. The requirement is proportionate because there is scope for the landlord to make the adjustments with the support of the local authority.

The other questions asked by the noble Baroness were about the cost of licences and about Section 257. We decided local authorities should be left to decide the cost of licences. We did that, for example, with high hedges, because it is a local issue, but I am not going to be drawn into high hedges. Evidence suggests that there is wide variation, so I cannot tell the noble Baroness what the average cost will be. In the regulatory impact assessment, we suggested that it would be about £500. The cost in some local authorities will be lower and in others, it will be higher and we will watch that. It is important to bear in mind that those costs have to be applied to the costs of the licence and are not to be used for anything else. The fees are supposed to cover the costs undertaken by the local authority. They are to do a particular job as judged best by the local authority, but we will watch them.

I shall return to the other point about antisocial behaviour, but HMOs are still included in registration schemes made by local authorities under Section 257 of the 1985 Act. A further set of regulations that deal specifically with them will be made. I take the point about the timing. We aim to make the regulations in July so that they will be in force in October. The problem is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, that they have been a long time in delivery, and we do not want to delay if we can possibly avoid it. There has been consultation on this.

Baroness Hanham: The other point is that, unlike the other regulations, there has been no draft of these
 
16 May 2006 : Column GC77
 
proposals. There may have been consultation, but there have been no draft regulations, so nobody has had the opportunity to see formally what is coming up. There is that aspect as well as the fact that it will not be long before implementation. I wonder whether that date can be put back.

Baroness Andrews: I certainly take the point that the noble Baroness is making. I will confer with my officials about that. As I said, we have consulted and will continue to consult with stakeholders.

I have some news from the front. My officials have just handed me a note.

Baroness Hanham: The front is doing well.

Baroness Andrews: The front is looking nervous, although I cannot actually see them.

Apparently, there will be draft regulations, so we will be able to let you have copies of those.

In terms of antisocial behaviour, the discretion is set out in the Act itself in relation to the interim management orders. Antisocial behaviour has to be significant and persistent. On that basis, we would not expect intermittent, casual behaviour. It has to be identifiable. ASBOs have become a more familiar part of the armoury against social disorder. Local authorities are getting more used to assessing levels of antisocial behaviour and determining the proportionate response, so there is a growing experience there. We are expecting that local authorities will draw on that and take a reasonable approach. However, they also have a clear set of criteria against which actions can be justified. They will have to be justified, because the residential property tribunal will be involved in determining issues of selective licensing. There has obviously got to be a careful and not a frivolous approach to this. Essentially, we are looking at putting in place the definition "persistent and significant". Again, monitoring will pick up any inconsistent behaviour.

I have answered all the points that have been raised. I am very grateful for the work of the noble Baronesses over the years to see this into legislation. It is a careful set of regulatory requirements which will make a difference, particularly to vulnerable people. We look forward to seeing changes in living standards and expectations as a result.

Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for responding to my questions. In principle, I am not against the orders and never have been, although it is important that we have unpicked some of these areas at such an early stage of the orders.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Prescribed Descriptions) (England) Order 2006

Baroness Hanham: I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
 
16 May 2006 : Column GC78
 

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Prescribed Descriptions) (England) Order 2006 (S.I. 2006/371) [26th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Baroness Hanham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation and Other Houses (Miscellaneous Provisions) (England) Regulations 2006

Baroness Hanham: I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Licensing and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation and Other Houses (Miscellaneous Provisions) (England) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/373) [26th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Baroness Hanham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006

Baroness Hanham: I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/372) [26th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Baroness Hanham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

---