Housing (Interim Management Orders) (Prescribed Circumstances) (England) Order 2006

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Housing (Interim Management Orders) (Prescribed Circumstances) (England) Order 2006 (S.I. 2006/369) [26th Report from the Merits Committee]. The noble Baroness said: I shall speak to all the housing orders together. They are the second tranche of orders that were introduced by secondary legislation on 6 April and arise from the Housing Act 2004. I do not have an enormous amount to say on the orders, but I have some questions, which is why I have prayed against them. It would be helpful to those who are involved in private housing management to have answers to the questions that they have put to me. I fully understand the imperatives that have brought these regulations about, and I believe that much will be achieved if they are handled with a reasonably light touch within the parameters laid down. There are two elements in the orders before us. The first is intervention by the local authority when there are concerns about the antisocial behaviour of an occupier or the occupiers of a privately managed property. That is the Housing (Interim Management Orders) (Prescribed Circumstances) (England) Order 2006. This order applies when the landlord is deemed not to take sufficient action to deal with antisocial behaviour. In principle, as I indicated during the passage of the Housing Act 2004, we understand that concerns can arise from the actions of ““neighbours from hell””. But it would be helpful if the Minister could indicate the parameters that define antisocial behaviour and when it might be deemed appropriate for a local authority to make an interim management order. Different grades of problems arise from neighbours and I wonder what would be required for a local authority to intervene. Would it be an enormous number of complaints from nearby residents or the destruction of property? It would be helpful to know. The other area covered in the orders is the licensing of houses in multiple occupation. Those trying to implement the orders have considerable anxieties. I have been briefed by the British Property Federation and the National Landlords Association. The first problem relates to the amount of time that has been allowed—or not allowed—between the publication of the regulations and their implementation. As part of the Government’s regulation rules, there is a minimum period of three months between a regulation being published and coming into force. In the case of the three orders today, they came into effect on 6 April, with local authorities gaining their enforcement powers on 6 July. As the Minister will know, the three-month delay is meant to help small businesses—in this case, landlords—have a full three months in which to familiarise themselves with the new law and submit their license applications. However, because all the regulations were published very late landlords are not getting the full benefit of the implementation period, as most local authorities have yet to provide the specifics for implementation at local level. It is clear from information that has been obtained that few local authorities are, in fact, ready for the implementation of the scheme and the issue of licenses. How does the Minister believe implementation is to take place against a constrained timescale such as this? Further, there is the question of the costs of licences, which have been left to individual local authorities to assess, but which anecdotal evidence suggests could be as much as £500 for a three-storey, five-bedroom property, which is not large in the context of houses in multiple occupancy. Does the Minister believe that there is a level that is becoming apparent as a licence charge? Many landlords are also concerned with what they see as excessive requirements in relation to amenity standards, in particular the number of bathrooms that have to be provided, and the requirements for wash hand basins in bedrooms in shared houses. In many instances it is impractical to provide them, in terms of plumbing and reasonable cost. The Government’s table for the interpretation of these standards, which had to be issued to clarify the somewhat ill-drafted miscellaneous provisions regulations seems to indicate that the provision required is significantly beyond that required in normal private accommodation. Will the Minister comment on that, and on the requirements for the testing of electrical supply, which appear to be far more onerous than under previous circumstances when the testing of gas and water was introduced? However, the main problem is a statutory instrument that does not appear to have appeared, relating to Section 257 of the Act. Regulations were due to have been published in draft at the end of January, but have still not appeared, and they are now not due until mid-June, but will still be coming into force on 6 July. That is quite unsatisfactory as it breaches two of the Government’s own regulatory rules: the 12-week implementation period for new regulations and the obligation, which was to be implemented from the beginning of this year, to introduce regulations on only one of two common commencement dates, in April and October, except in exceptional circumstances, which clearly these are not. The Minister may not be in a position to make any commitment on this today, but it would be helpful if the commencement date for the regulations that are yet to be published could be moved to October, with a subsequent delay in local authorities being given their enforcement powers to that date also. I beg to move. Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Housing (Interim Management Orders) (Prescribed Circumstances) (England) Order 2006 (S.I. 2006/369) [26th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Baroness Hanham.)