Housing and Planning Bill (Ninth sitting)

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Whatever.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for the spirit of his response to my point of order this morning. I have been on the website and I can see information about the offer that was made to the Government in October, but no additional information appears to be there about the detail of further discussions or, specifically, of the arrangements with the five housing associations that are proceeding with the pilot. If the Minister were able to give us further information ahead of Tuesday’s sittings, that would be extremely helpful.

[Brandon Lewis]

Obviously we are now somewhat outside the scope of the Bill, but I am sure that there will be information over the next few months as we answer questions and make Government statements about what we are doing. The National Housing Federation and the housing associations themselves will also be publishing such information. I am pleased that, as of last night, the five pilots are in place and people may go and register for the right to buy their own home.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

Sir Alan, given that we have debated the subject in general earlier, will it be acceptable—

[Mr Thomas]

I thought I knew the direction of the Minister’s remarks, so rather than necessarily having to make a formal speech in a clause stand part debate, I thought I might simply intervene to ask a question and, I hope, not have to press matters further.

Subsection (2)—and, indeed, subsection (1)—states that the tenant must have “a good reason” to press for reinstatement. I wonder whether the Minister might set out on the record what those good reasons are. I say that in the spirit of him wanting to help tenants, as the clause implies, who have unfairly or wrongly had their tenancy terminated under section 49, and I ask in a context in which occasionally, debates when legislation is being introduced can be used to provide guidance to the courts about what the purpose in the Government and Parliament’s mind was behind particular clauses.

Simply, will the Minister set out in more detail than perhaps he was initially intending what constitute, in his mind, the good reasons that might see a tenant wanting to go to a county court to get a reinstatement order, and indeed, being successful?

[Mr Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. As he rightly points out, that would be a matter for the court, but to reassure him about the spirit in which the clause on reinstatement is intended, let me give him an example. A tenant may go away on holiday for a short period, during which they have a serious accident that possibly hospitalises or incapacitates them for some time. It may well be that that renders any contract with the landlord impossible for them to fulfil, and therefore, the courts may decide, on the basis of those extenuating circumstances that the tenant could not do anything about, that it would be right and proper to reinstate the tenancy. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman about the thinking behind the clause.

[Mr Thomas]

rose—

[The Chair]

Briefly, Mr Thomas.

[Mr Thomas]

I apologise for detaining the Committee on this clause, which is helpful, as was the Minister’s example. He will be aware from our discussions this morning that a series of other examples were discussed, such as short prison sentences, someone being taken ill with a mental health condition, or someone perhaps with the early onset of an incurable condition such as Alzheimer’s. Does the Minister see those examples, similarly, as a good reason for the county court to reinstate the tenancy?

[Mr Jones]

Although I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, as I said—I have already given a reasonable example of where we are coming from in proposing the clause—it would be for the court to decide on the particular circumstances at a particular time and on whether they deem those circumstances as such that the tenancy should be reinstated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jackson]

I would like to add briefly to the important point the Minister has made. Members of the Committee might have heard “World at One” a few weeks ago when it focused on high levels of immigration in the Peterborough constituency. They followed around a housing enforcement officer of 20 years’ experience, who found, in a two-bedroom house, a family comprising a mother on her own and eight children. That is pertinent because it is important to make the point that is no good for individual local authorities to collect those data if they do not cross-reference them with other regulatory and statutory bodies.

It is appalling not only that that mother was living with eight children in a slum, and a greedy, rapacious landlord was skimming money off the state and plunging them into misery; frankly, that lady should not have been in the country because she is a Slovak national. She was not exercising her EU free movement directive rights because she was not employed, self-employed, looking for work or a student. She should not have been in the UK accessing UK benefits. Over and above the housing issue, we need a much tougher and more robust regulatory framework to share information with organisations such as Border Force. I hope that we are able to do that in some way because, frankly, we want to drive some landlords out of the market, but we also want to ensure that the right people are in the country accessing the scarce public resources.

[Mr Thomas]

Very briefly, I want to press the point about the jurisdiction of the database. It clearly relates to England, but rogue landlords operating in the Gloucester area or on the borders of Wales might have properties in Wales. It might be similar with the border areas close to Scotland. It would be useful, as part of the Minister’s helpful commitment to look at how the database might be made even more robust, to think about co-operation with Welsh, Scottish and even Northern Irish housing authorities.

[Teresa Pearce]

I am reassured by the Minister’s comments. We all agree that we want to drive those sorts of people out of business, because of the suffering of their tenants and the impact on the communities in which they live—on schools and on the NHS. Slum landlords overcrowding properties is a problem in all constituencies, particularly in London. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 128, in clause 85, page 35, line 5, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

“(5) In section 89 (tests for fitness and satisfactory management arrangements: certain other houses)—

(a) after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) A local housing authority in England must also have regard to any evidence within subsection (3A) or (3B).’;

(b) in subsection (2), in paragraph (c), after ‘tenant law’ insert

‘(including Part 3 of the Immigration Act 2014)’;

(c) after subsection (3) insert—

‘(3A) Evidence is within this subsection if it shows that P—

(a) requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom but does not have it; or

(b) is insolvent or an undischarged bankrupt.

(3B) Evidence is within this subsection if—

(a) it shows that any person associated or formerly associated with P (whether on a personal, work or other basis) is a person to whom subsection (3A)(a) or (b) applies; and

(b) it appears to the authority that the evidence is relevant to the question whether P is a fit and proper person to be the licence holder or (as the case may be) the manager of the house.’

(6) In section 93, in subsection (2), in the words after paragraph (c)—

(a) for ‘Section 89(1) applies’ substitute ‘Section 89(1) and (1A) apply’;

(b) for ‘it applies’ substitute ‘they apply’.”—(Brandon Lewis.)

See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment number 127.

Clause 85, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 86

Financial penalty as alternative to prosecution under Housing Act 2004

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Thomas]

I rise to support my hon. Friend’s amendment and to push the Minister gently for clarity about why, as the Bill stands, someone who was subject to a banning order could not be subject to a financial penalty as well. Given the significant costs that any housing authority will incur in taking action against one or other of the 10,500 rogue landlords that the Minister estimates there to be, why should not a financial penalty be imposed to help to recover some of the costs of taking action against them?

The hon. Member for Peterborough was a particular fan of the examples of rogue landlords in a recent article in the Conservative party newspaper The Guardian. I cannot think of any reason why any of those individuals who has already been convicted of being a bad landlord and who may or may not be subject to a banning order under this legislation should not also face a financial penalty. I hope that the Minister might, on this occasion, welcome my hon. Friend’s amendment and accept it for inclusion in the Bill.

[Brandon Lewis]

I appreciate what the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead has said about the amendment being a probing one, and I hope that I can satisfy her queries. While we are still considering this part of the Bill, I want to pick up on the points made by the hon. Member for Harrow West a few moments ago about how the information is spread and the databases. I am committed to looking at what we can do about that. Obviously, we have devolution and some of those matters are devolved. An amendment would be required to the Bill, but the details could be set out in a memorandum of understanding. That is part of what we are looking at now. We all share the desire to make it as difficult as possible for anybody who is not a fit and proper person ever to be able to be in a similar position again.

Amendment 138 would make a change to clause 86 to allow a local housing authority to impose a civil penalty in addition to, rather than as an alternative to, prosecuting a landlord, as the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead has quite rightly outlined. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough talked in the last few minutes about rapacious landlords. I will take his “rapacious” and raise him this: I want to make sure that we drive out avaricious landlords, as much as rapacious ones, so that they cannot act in the market again.

We have to make sure that we get the balance right, however. The Bill provides local housing authorities with a choice about whether to go down the civil penalty route or the prosecution route, depending on the seriousness of the offence. That is a matter for them to review in the light of their local circumstances. I think it would be disproportionate to use both regimes in relation to the same conduct, especially when local authorities will also benefit from other measures in the Bill. As we have outlined over the last few days, we are keen to look at going further and making this even harder on people. For instance, local authorities can apply for a rent repayment order where rent has been paid from housing benefit or universal credit and where certain housing offences have been committed, as set out in part 2 of the Bill. That is in addition to the powers already available through the Housing Act 2004, under which magistrates can rightly impose unlimited fines for the most serious housing offences. I hope that, given that short explanation, hon. Members will agree to withdraw their amendment.

[Mr Thomas]

I hear the Minister’s point about the need for proportionality. It seems eminently sensible. For a first offence, one clearly would not want to impose both a financial penalty and some other form of penalty. However, for the very worst sorts of landlord, I do not see why one could not add the option of a financial penalty as well, as part of the armoury of tools available to a first-tier tribunal in dealing with a rogue landlord.

[Brandon Lewis]

Obviously, it depends on the seriousness of the offence. It is for local authorities to decide whether to go down the civil or criminal route. If they do the latter and use the Housing Act 2004, of course, magistrates have an unlimited ability to fine for that kind of offence. It is absolutely covered in that sense; they can impose unlimited fines. For the most serious housing offences, it is right that they should have that freedom and flexibility. I hope that hon. Members will agree to withdraw the amendment.