Teresa Pearce
Main Page: Teresa Pearce (Labour - Erith and Thamesmead)Housing and Planning Bill (Ninth sitting)
Teresa Pearce Excerpts(8 years, 12 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 107, in clause 51, page 22, leave out lines 34 to 37.
This amendment removes subsections 4 and 5 of Clause 51 from the Bill which would remove the ability for a landlord to deliver the first of the two letters needed to evict a tenant suspected of abandoning the property before they have missed rent.
The purpose of the amendment is to get some clarification from the Government. I realise that they have their own amendment to improve this part of the Bill slightly, but we have moved our amendment because the Bill states:
“The first warning notice may be given even if the unpaid rent condition is not yet met”,
which appears to be against the spirit of what the Minister was saying this morning.
If a warning notice may be given without the unpaid rent condition being met, a warning notice could be given when the tenant has done nothing wrong. We were a little confused about that and would welcome clarification and some reassurance about why the provision is in the Bill and what it is intended to do. As we said earlier, we are talking about only a few tenancies a year, but the measure seems to be outside the scope of what the Minister said earlier.
Will the Minister tell us something else? In discussion of earlier amendments, the Minister did not answer the question of what pressure or lobbying had happened. Why is the provision in the Bill? The problem is a small one, for a small number of people, so although I understand everything that has been said about the problems for landlords, I wondered whether there was another reason for the measure.
For example, in my area we have two local courts, both under severe pressure. One is very inefficient and people find it difficult to get their cases through the court, so I wondered whether the provision was in the Bill because of a problem with the court, or for another reason. The Minister did not really mention that earlier, so may we have some clarity on what subsection (4) is meant to do and why it is there?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
I hear what the hon. Lady says and her intentions are important, but I reassure her and the Committee that the amendment is unnecessary, because the case is already covered by the Bill as drafted.
The clauses are carefully drafted, but no doubt seem complex. The second warning notice cannot be served unless there is unpaid rent of at least eight consecutive weeks. Given that the second warning notice must be given at least two weeks and no more than four weeks after the first warning notice, in practice the first warning notice cannot be served unless there is unpaid rent of at least four consecutive weeks.
The hon. Lady is looking at me in a rather perplexed fashion, but I understand what she is saying and, if she reads my comments and compares them carefully with the two subsections that she is looking to the Committee to remove from the Bill, I am sure she will realise that no consequence of our measure will diminish the position of a tenant. As I have explained, we are keen to strengthen rather than diminish the position of tenants in the Bill.
The hon. Lady mentioned her two courts in connection with the reason for the provisions. The reason why we are introducing the provisions is to bring forward at the earliest practicable opportunity, in a way that protects tenants, a means to bring properties that have been abandoned back into use so that people may be housed in them. That is the purpose of the chapter. There is no ulterior motive to reduce the number of times that people go to court. I hope she accepts my explanation in the spirit in which it is intended and withdraws the amendment.
Teresa Pearce
I thank the Minister for his explanation. Without meaning to give offence, I will probably have to read back what he said to convince myself. It seems confusing that a warning notice may be given without the unpaid rent condition being met, but the Minister says that that would not happen. It is, however, complex and I am pleased about the third notice, which is an improvement. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 120, in clause 51, page 22, line 39, at end insert—
‘( ) The third warning notice must be given before the period of 5 days ending with the date specified in the warning notices under subsection (2)(b).’
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 118.
Amendment 121, in clause 51, page 22, line 39, at end insert—
‘( ) The Secretary of State may make regulations setting out the form that the third warning notice must take.’—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 118.
Clause 51, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52
Reinstatement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
Exceptionally, this hollow starred amendment, together with other hollowed starred amendments in the name of Teresa Pearce, has been selected.
Teresa Pearce
I beg to move amendment 136, in clause 84, page 34, leave out lines 19 and 20.
This amendment would retain sections 225 and 226 of the Housing Act 2004 regarding accommodation needs of gypsies and travellers.
I thank you, Sir Alan, and the Committee for allowing this hollow starred amendment to be considered. Before I start, I would like to express my personal interest in this subject. Thamesmead was built on the marshlands on the south of the Thames, where many marsh Gypsies and Travellers have historically lived, so we have a large Traveller community in my constituency of Erith and Thamesmead, and this is therefore something I feel quite strongly about.
Amendment 136 would lead to the retention of sections 225 and 226 of the Housing Act 2004. Section 225 requires every local authority, when carrying out a review of local housing needs under section 8 of the Housing Act 1985, to carry out an assessment of the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers who reside in the area. Section 226 provides for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on how local housing authorities can meet those needs. Clause 84 will remove the requirement for local authorities to make an assessment of the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers when considering local housing need.
There has clearly been, and continues to be, a need to recognise the differing housing needs of Gypsies and Travellers. Anyone with a basic understanding of Gypsies and Travellers would appreciate that they have different housing needs. The impact assessment states that the aim of the policy is to
“ensure that all members of the community are treated equally”;
but we can treat people equally only if we fully assess their needs. People should be treated equally, but without a needs assessment, I do not think that can happen. The assessment also states:
“The Government recognises a perception of differential treatment in favour of Gypsies and Travellers.”
There may be such a perception, but surely we should legislate on the basis not of perceptions but of facts.
The Committee has seen a wealth of evidence about how devastating the impact on Gypsy and Traveller communities could be. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation noted:
“The former Commission for Racial Equality concluded in 2006 that Gypsies and Irish Travellers are the most excluded groups in Britain today”.
Provision for the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers continues to be lacking, and the foundation commented:
“The Equality and Humans Rights Commission, in reviewing activity since the 2004 Act, concluded that the overall rate of progress was slow, but that there were a number of positive aspects emerging, in terms of the types of sites being developed, and their permanence.”
The foundation went on to call for
“a continued focussed assessment of this community’s particular needs”
and for the requirement to assess Gypsy and Traveller needs to be retained.
The national charity Friends, Families and Travellers submitted evidence to the Committee. It is concerned that the provisions that are in place weaken the understanding of the specific accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers. The 2007 Department for Communities and Local Government guidance on Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs assessments—that is a long title—states:
“In the past, the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers…have not routinely formed part of the process by which local authorities assess people’s housing needs. The consequences of this have been that the current and projected accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers have often not been well understood.”
Friends, Families and Travellers is concerned that removing the requirement specifically to assess the accommodation need of Gypsies and Travellers will result in an even higher rate of homelessness in the communities as even fewer sites to meet their assessed need will be delivered, and even less land will be allocated in local plans. It highlights the concern that, as a result of the shortage of authorised sites, Gypsies and Travellers will have no alternative but to camp in an unauthorised manner, which has an impact not only on their community but on surrounding settled communities. Without authorised sites, they will have difficulty in getting access to running water, toilets, refuse collections, schools and employment opportunities. Local authorities already spend millions of pounds each year on unauthorised encampments, in legal costs, evictions, blocking off land from encampment and clear-up costs. Friends, Families and Travellers highlights a lose-lose situation, where Gypsies’ and Travellers’ needs are not assessed or met, and local communities are affected as a consequence.
The Community Law Partnership also expressed concern about the impact of the clause. It is concerned that Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs will be
“buried within general housing need.”
It highlighted the fact that Gypsies and Travellers
“are traditionally hard to reach groups, and as such require focused guidance for local authorities to assess their needs.”
It is also concerned that there has not been consultation on the proposals, and questions the recent consultation on planning and Travellers.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that good local authorities that plan ahead put arrangements in place, by way of emergency stopping places, which allow, in extremis, a number of Gypsies and Travellers to reside there temporarily? Although it takes time and is subject to consultation, which can be very fraught, that is the case with many authorities.
Teresa Pearce
That is the case with good local authorities but, as we all know from experience, some local authorities are better than others. We want people to be treated equally, no matter which local authority they fall within.
The London Gypsy and Traveller Unit is also concerned at the intention to,
“incorporate the needs of Gypsies and Travellers within the general housing needs assessments.”
It even produced three short films to raise awareness of the proposed changes within the Gypsy and Traveller community. It believes that,
“general housing needs studies such as Strategic Housing Market Assessments are unable to pick up the needs of marginalised, hard to reach communities such as Gypsies and Travellers.”
It adds that,
“these studies are based on demographic projections which are not disaggregated by ethnicity”
and often on limited direct surveys, which are likely to miss off the entire Gypsy and Traveller population. The unit believes that as
“Gypsy and Traveller site provision is generally faced with enormous opposition, it is crucial to have in place positive policies that recognise the full extent of need, as well as site allocations which enable the delivery of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation in suitable locations.”
The National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups—the umbrella group for liaison groups across the UK —submitted written evidence questioning the proposal’s compatibility with the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act 2010. Heine Planning Consultancy submitted written evidence supporting the retention of a duty to consider Traveller housing need and expressing further concerns at the impact of removing that requirement.
Michael Hargreaves, of Michael Hargreaves Planning, raised concern about the implications of deleting sections 225 and 226. He raised concern about the confusion and uncertainty for local authorities and about the impact on Gypsies and Travellers, and he believes the change will lead to anger and frustration in that community. He supports widening, not narrowing, the support to meet Travellers’ and Gypsies’ housing need.
The Derbyshire Gypsy Liaison Group believes that it is important that we have a mechanism to assist Gypsy and Traveller families with their accommodation needs, and that the proposals will worsen the housing situation for those communities.
The Traveller Movement, a leading national charity working in partnership with the community, highlights a number of concerns. All available data show that Gypsies and Travellers do not receive favourable treatment in the planning system. The Traveller Movement highlights a chronic shortage of Traveller sites and says that that shortage will grow in the future. It notes:
“Gypsies and Travellers already experience some of the poorest social outcomes of any group in our society and accommodation is a key determinant of these wider inequalities.”
It questions the legal implications of the proposals, which I will come to in a moment, and it does not support the removal of sections 225 and 226.
We also saw submissions from Ruston Planning Ltd, Hereford Travellers Support and the all-party group on Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, which raised further concerns about the proposals. In addition, we saw a written submission from the Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain, the main representative body for travelling showpeople, which shared its extreme concern about these proposals and their impact on its members’ work. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline the impact on travelling showpeople. I would also be grateful for any reassurances he can give the guild and showpeople that the provisions will not impact them.
Policy on this issue is different across the nations. The Welsh Government are taking a different approach, introducing a statutory duty on local authorities to facilitate site provision for Gypsies and Travellers.
The amendment is necessary to continue support for Traveller and Gypsy communities, which are some of the most excluded groups in Britain. There are also legality issues, which I hope the Minister will be able to respond to.
The Community Law Partnership highlights the public sector equality duty. Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are recognised as ethnic minorities, and the Government acknowledge that there is a shortage of suitable sites for them, so will the Minister comment on the potential under-provision of suitable sites, given that the needs of these groups will not be properly assessed?
The European Court of Human Rights has held that the UK has an obligation to facilitate the traditional way of life of Gypsies and Travellers. I shall be grateful if the Minister can confirm whether the removal of sections 225 and 226 would go against that.
Our amendment would ensure the retention of sections 225 and 226. That would ensure that Gypsies’ and Travellers’ housing needs continue to be assessed by local authorities. That would make sure that safe sites can continue to be identified for Gypsies and Travellers, avoiding the lose-lose situation in the Bill, where an under-represented group faces the prospect of its housing need being swallowed up by general housing need.
As it stands, the clause would lead to many unintended consequences: a shortage of authorised sites for Gypsies and Travellers; a rise in unauthorised sites; less safety for Gypsies and Travellers; and greater pressures on local authorities and local communities. I therefore hope the Committee will consider the amendment.
Mr Jackson
I rise to oppose the hon. Lady’s position and to support the Government. The Government’s position is quite courageous, because this is obviously an incendiary issue, not least at local level. We in the east of England have been bedevilled over the years by unauthorised and illegal encampments. Indeed, I have had some choice words with my own local superintendent, who has failed to properly use his powers under the relevant legislation, even when emergency stopping places have been provided for Traveller families. The position in the north of Cambridgeshire is not quite as bad as it has been in the south, around Cambridge, but it has nevertheless been very difficult.
Mr Jackson
I am just developing my comments, and I will not detain the Committee too long. But let us establish something right from the outset. The general housing needs of the population, which will reflect the social, economic and demographic profile of a particular district, borough, city, unitary or county council, are reflected in the housing plan and the decisions taken by an authority based on the evidence available from professional officers. That evidence is given to elected members so they can bring forward the county structure plan, which is now the regional spatial strategy—the local district plan. That will take into account the preponderance in favour of local authorities having to house Gypsy and Traveller families.
Were the legislation to be changed along the lines set out by the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead, it would single out a particular group, and circumscribe the autonomy of the local housing authority and its authority to make reasonable changes and accommodations for particular individuals. That would exacerbate the resentment—and sometimes anger—among the settled community, who would feel that their housing needs were being disregarded in favour of a special group. Whether we agree with that or not, that is the perception there would no doubt be.
I say to the hon. Lady that I agree that the Government would be wise to look at the issue of accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers, but let us see whether we can nuance the existing legislation, which, as I have mentioned, gives rise to the provision of emergency stopping places. If there is a proper consultation, then let us all be honest: in the London Borough of Greenwich, in Northumberland and in Durham, there will be brownfield sites, which are not in commercial or industrial use and may be near an urban centre, that could be used as emergency stopping places.
I am not convinced that local authorities have been sufficiently robust in investigating those options. Perhaps the Department for Communities and Local Government has more to do to encourage them to consult and to look at best practice. It has been a tortuous process for my city council, not least because many of the councillors in the nice leafy villages to the west of Peterborough did not want them there; they wanted them in the east of Peterborough, which I represent. I lost out and three of our emergency stopping places are now in the east of Peterborough. We have borne that burden for the good of the community, and more local authorities can learn from their neighbours in that respect.
Teresa Pearce
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He seems to be saying that local authorities should be pressed to do more, but surely they would be so pressed by getting them to assess housing needs. That is not contradictory.
Mr Jackson
That is if one assumes that local authorities are not already discharging their proper statutory functions in providing appropriate housing, where they can, with registered providers to everyone who needs it in their local community. My difficulty with the hon. Lady’s amendment is that it singles out a particular group and would exacerbate community tension. I am not convinced that in practical, pragmatic terms it would deliver more housing for that group. I agree that more work needs to be done, but we need a less prescriptive, less heavy-handed approach. For that reason, I will resist the amendment.
Teresa Pearce
I thank the Minister for his reassurances. I am still concerned about there not being a provision in the legislation to make local authorities do something. Not all local authorities act in the same way, but I am minded to accept the reassurances given. I look forward to seeing further evidence as we go forward, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 85
Licences for HMO and other rented accommodation: additional tests
Brandon Lewis
I beg to move amendment 127, in clause 85, page 34, line 26, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) In section 66 (tests for fitness and satisfactory management arrangements: houses in multiple occupation)—
(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.’
(4) In section 70 (revocation of licences), in subsection (2), in the words after paragraph (c)—
(a) for ‘Section 66(1) applies’ substitute ‘Section 66(1) and (1A) apply’;
(b) for ‘it applies’ substitute ‘they apply’.”
This amendment, together with amendment 128, ensures that amendments made by clause 85 apply only to England.
Brandon Lewis
Clause 85 amends the fitness test applied to persons who apply for licences to let a house in multiple occupation or subject to selective licensing. It adds criteria to those that local housing authorities must currently take into account under sections 66 and 89 of the Housing Act 2004. Amendments 127 and 128 are minor and technical amendments to ensure that the additional criteria apply only to England.
Amendment 127 agreed to.
Teresa Pearce
I beg to move amendment 137, in clause 85, page 34, line 37, at end insert—
“(g) has a current entry on the Database of Rogue Landlords and Letting Agents as set out in Part 2 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015.”
This amendment would deny those with an entry on the Database of Rogue Landlords and Letting Agents from being granted a licence for a HMO.
This amendment would ensure that those with an entry on the database of rogue landlords and letting agents are not granted a licence for a house in multiple occupation. Anybody subject to a banning order would not be allowed to be granted a licence for an HMO, but we would like that to apply also to those with an entry on the database of rogue landlords and letting agents. As we discussed at length on Tuesday, it is important that we crack down on rogue landlords, who drive down the whole private rented sector. We support measures to tackle those people, both to ensure the security and safety of tenants and to penalise criminal landlords. One way in which that could be furthered is by amending clause 85 to include those with an entry on the database of rogue landlords and letting agents, so that they would be denied a licence for an HMO.
Clause 85 currently amends previous legislation to include further measures in the fitness test for a landlord to be granted an HMO licence. We would like this further measure to be added to ensure that rogue landlords could not be granted HMO licences. I was encouraged to see the consultation document that the Government put out earlier this month on HMOs. No doubt I will respond to that in due course, but this amendment would assist in ensuring that those licensed to run an HMO were fit to do so.
As the Committee will be aware, a local housing authority may include other persons on the rogue landlords database, rather than applying for a banning order, in a case where a person’s offences are slightly less serious and the local authority considers monitoring of that person to be more appropriate than seeking a banning order. With this amendment, we seek an assurance that those people would not be considered for an HMO licence. It would have the added bonus of ensuring that the local housing authority checked with the rogue landlords and letting agents database to ensure that the applicant was allowed, which would ensure that nobody subject to a banning order slipped through.
If in future the database of rogue landlords and letting agents were to be expanded, it would provide further protection for tenants against such people. As discussed before, we are supportive of measures to tackle rogue landlords, both to ensure the security of tenants and to penalise criminal landlords. I believe that the amendment would help to drive up standards across the sector by protecting tenants in HMOs from such people. I therefore hope that the Committee will consider the amendment.
Brandon Lewis
I appreciate that the amendment would require a local authority to have regard to the fact that a landlord had been included in the database of rogue landlords and letting agents when considering an application from that landlord for a licence to operate a house in multiple occupation or for selective licensing.
If the Committee will bear with me for a few moments, I want to go into a bit of detail to give the hon. Lady a full answer. A local authority is already required to have regard to a range of factors when deciding whether to grant a licence. Those include whether the applicant has committed any offence involving fraud or other dishonesty, violence or drugs, practised unlawful discrimination, or contravened any provision relating to housing or landlord and tenant law.
That last factor—contravention of housing or landlord and tenant law—would include all the offences leading to inclusion in the database. The database will be a key source of information for local authorities when taking decisions on whether to grant a licence. Those safeguards are very important, as it is clearly essential that a local authority can be confident that a licence is granted only to a landlord who can demonstrate that they are a fit and proper person to operate a house in multiple occupation, or a property subject to selective licensing, and will not pose a risk to the health and safety of their tenants, many of whom may be vulnerable.
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
Teresa Pearce
I beg to move amendment 138, in clause 86, page 35, line 24, leave out “as an alternative” and insert “in addition”
This amendment would allow for a financial penalty as an addition, rather than as an alternative, to prosecution.
The amendment is a probing one. I would like to query this with the Minister. The amendment would amend clause 86. The clause introduces schedule 4, which amends the Housing Act 2004 to allow financial penalties to be imposed as an alternative to prosecution in certain offences. The amendment would ensure that financial penalties could be sought in addition to prosecution, rather than as an alternative.
On Tuesday in Committee, there appeared to be a growing consensus that the Bill could go further to penalise criminal landlords to deter them from committing crimes and from returning to the sector, as well as providing an adequate punishment for the offence. I hope the amendment might meet with a similar consensus.
We support the measures to tackle rogue landlords and to penalise criminal landlords. By seeking further provisions to penalise criminal landlords, we would ensure that they do not get away with the offences they commit. At present, the Bill allows for a financial penalty to be sought instead of criminal prosecution in cases from failure to comply with improvement notices to letting an unlicensed HMO. Clearly, there will be cases where a financial penalty will be more appropriate, as well as ones where a court route will be more appropriate. However, there may well be other situations where both routes will be appropriate, and the amendment would allow both routes to be taken. That would also help in situations where the impact of the offence is unclear. A local authority may deem a financial penalty to be appropriate, but for repeat offenders, or if the impact of the original offence escalates, there may also be a wish to seek an additional prosecutorial route. Making provision for both routes will allow greater flexibility. Local authorities could choose to fine or they could choose to prosecute, but they could also choose to seek both measures.
I hope that the Minister will consider my amendment and explain to me why he believes that local authorities should be able to do one or the other, but not both. Is there something that forbids local authorities from placing large fines, or some other reason why they cannot do both? We want to deter people from committing the crimes we are talking about and from returning to the sector, so we want to provide adequate punishment. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation of why the clause has been phrased as it has.
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.
Teresa Pearce
As I outlined earlier when moving the amendment, it was a probing amendment, so we do not wish to proceed to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Financial penalty as alternative to prosecution under Housing Act 2004
Teresa Pearce
I beg to move amendment 139, in schedule 4, page 78, line 9, leave out “but must not be more than £5,000”.
This amendment would remove the limit for the amount of a financial penalty imposed by the local housing authority under the section.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 140, in schedule 4, page 78, line 42, leave out “but must not be more than £5,000”.
This amendment would remove the limit for the amount of a financial penalty imposed by the local housing authority under the section.
Amendment 141, in schedule 4, page 79, line 32, leave out “but must not be more than £5,000”.
This amendment would remove the limit for the amount of a financial penalty imposed by the local housing authority under the section.
Amendment 142, in schedule 4, page 80, line 20, leave out “but must not be more than £2,000”.
This amendment would remove the limit for the amount of a financial penalty imposed by the local housing authority under the section.
Teresa Pearce
The amendments are grouped together and seek a similar aim. They are probing amendments, like the previous amendment. As discussed during debate on the previous amendment, amendments 139 to 142 relate to schedule 4, which allows for a financial penalty as an alternative to prosecution. Each amendment goes through schedule 4 to omit the upper limit on the financial penalty. What they seek is further scrutiny of the financial penalty of £5,000 or, in the case of an offence under section 139(7), £2,000.
On Tuesday, when we discussed part 2 of the Bill, a consensus appeared to be growing that the Bill could go further to penalise criminal landlords, and there appears to be a consensus in this room that that is what we all wish to do. Offences in schedule 4 are met with a similar fine and could be sought as an alternative to, rather than in addition to, prosecution. It is therefore appropriate to consider closely whether the amounts are suitable to the offence committed and do enough to deter rogue landlords from committing their crimes.
Can the Minister outline why those particular financial penalties have been set, and why those amounts are deemed appropriate? We believe that, particularly if the fines are sought as an alternative to prosecution, they need to penalise adequately. Why then do offences under section 95 of the Housing Act 2004, which relates to controlling or managing a house that is required to be licensed but is not—a house in multiple occupation—receive a fine of up to £20,000, while this Bill says that a local authority can impose a fine of up to only £5,000? Surely if a financial penalty can be issued as an alternative to prosecution by the local authority, the Bill must provide for as tough a penalty as the original Act does when seeking a prosecution. I would be grateful if he responded with the rationale for the level of the fines.
Brandon Lewis
Amendments 139 to 142, as the hon. Lady has outlined, would remove the £5,000 limit for a civil penalty or, in the case of a contravention of an overcrowding notice, £2,000. Instead, they would allow the local housing authority to impose an unlimited fine where the landlord has: failed to comply with an improvement notice; not obtained a licence for a licensable HMO; failed to comply with licence conditions; not obtained a licence for a property subject to selective licensing; failed to comply with licence conditions; or contravened an overcrowding notice. To turn to our conversation a few moments ago, obviously, at a point where an offence is that serious, the local authority has the opportunity to take a view about which course of action to take. Under the Housing Act 2004, magistrates courts have the ability to bring forward unlimited fines. However, as we discussed on Tuesday, it is right that these breaches carry as strong a penalty as possible, so that they are strong enough as a deterrent that no one wants to breach them in the first place. That is the best way to drive out these disgraceful rogue landlords.
I heard the strength of feeling that the civil penalties set out in the Bill must be high enough to damage a rogue landlord’s business model and make it untenable, and that the current penalties may not be sufficient. If the Committee will bear with me, I would like to consider the points raised by the hon. Lady in more detail than I have had the opportunity to today. I will return to the topic on Report. With that in mind, I hope she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Teresa Pearce
I am pleased to hear what the Minister says, which is similar to what was stated on Tuesday when we talked about the level of fine. We do not want something that is revenue-raising; we want something that is truly a deterrent, and the Bill needs enough teeth to do that. I welcome his remarks, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 87
Tenancy deposit information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I do not want to detain the Committee for long, but this may well be a pertinent time to raise the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) raised on Second Reading about information that can be collected at the same time that council tax information is collected. She made a powerful speech on the point. As the Minister knows, her contention is that whenever a billing authority requests council tax information from the resident, owner or managing agent of any dwelling, the authority should also request the provision by that person of tenure information in respect of the dwelling.
I would like to reiterate the points made by my hon. Friend on Second Reading and test the Minister’s appetite for bringing something forward on Report. Although the Minister will potentially respond by saying that some local authorities make such a request already, or that all local authorities recognise they have the power to do so, in reality, this is a very easy request for local authorities to make when asking for council tax information. Making tenure information available would provide some protection for tenants and would secure the reputation of landlords in general. It would provide a useful tool for local authorities when carrying out their housing functions, in terms of information about the various tenures available in their area, and making even more information available would be helpful.
I think we all want to see the information for rogue landlord databases widely spread. This would be a simple addition, so I am keen to hear whether the Minister is receptive either to bringing such a measure forward himself or to a Member tabling such a new clause or amendment on Report.
Teresa Pearce
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman raises that point, because it is interesting. Would he be surprised to learn that I wrote a year ago to Lin Homer, the head of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, to ask what she thought the tax gap was for rental income, and that she estimated it to be in the region of £500 million? Would what he suggests not be a way to have a full register of landlords who can then be reported to HMRC, to ensure they are filling in their tax returns properly?
Stephen Hammond
Having been on the Public Accounts Committee for six months at the end of the previous Parliament, nothing surprises me about the inefficiency of HMRC. It is a body that needs almost complete reform. I am not sure I will be tempted down the line that the hon. Lady suggests, however, because there would be an issue with what the database was then being used for, but she may wish to ask the Minister about that. I am keen on a simple question that could be added to inform local authorities, helping with what the Government are trying to get to in the thrust of their Bill. With those few remarks, I am raising the issue with the Minister.