---

Housing (Empty Dwelling Management Orders) (Prescribed Exceptions and Requirements) (England) Order 2006

rose to move to resolve, That this House calls upon Her Majesty’s Government to revoke the order laid before the House on 22 February (S.I. 2006/367) [26th Report from the Merits Committee]. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, during the passage of the Housing Act 2004 there was a considerable discussion on both the principle and the practical aspects of the proposals for both interim and final empty dwelling management orders. The principle concerned then, as it does now, the propriety of a local authority confiscating, for want of a better word, even for worthy purposes, property that is privately owned. Despite reassurances from the Minister—then the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, whom I am delighted to see in his place, though at this stage he is probably scarpering quickly—that empty dwelling management orders would be a last resort, and only after other voluntary measures had been sought to bring the properties back into occupation, fundamental concerns remain. That is why I have prayed against these orders today. I have read the consultation document that preceded the orders. Most of the issues raised during our debates on the Housing Bill were included but some concerns still remain. Where there is a regulation that has been promoted under the negative procedure, it is even more important that all substantial issues are covered. I have a number of questions for the Minister. In identifying a property that is deemed to be empty and to have been so for at least six months, from where will such information be gleaned? Will it be from members of the public who become fed up at seeing the house next door to them not lived in? Will it come from the council tax register, which is what is suggested? If it is to come from the council tax register and if the owner is paying council tax, then this may be a totally unsuitable vehicle for making a decision as to occupation. Will the Minister clarify the routes by which she believes—apart from the glaringly obvious situation where the property is becoming increasingly visibly dilapidated—such information may be garnered, and at what point the six months may start? A time scale of six months, from whenever it starts, may simply not be realistic. One of the aspects cited in the consultation document is for someone who has died. If someone has died it may take much longer than six months to ensure that probate is received and that a process can be carried out to identify what is going to happen. An example that was raised when we debated it in the House, which I did not see in the consultation document—forgive me if it was there—was a person who is in long-term care, a patient who is in hospital who is seriously ill or a resident in a care home, with a family who are unable or unwilling to sell the property and who may leave it sitting there because they are concerned that their mother, father or relative will be upset if the property were to pass out of their possession. What will stop a local authority, even if it has, and I believe it will, the flexibility to disregard such a property, taking action against it? During the passage of the Housing Bill we spoke about the management and the potential tenants if either an interim or, particularly, a final management order is made. Will the Minister indicate whether the management will be given to a registered social landlord, whether it will be left with the local authority itself, or whether it will be put into the private sector? Equally, will any tenants be found from the private sector or will they come from the council’s waiting or homeless persons list; and what right under either circumstance would the proprietor—as I think the owner is called in the document—have to refuse to agree to a tenant or a number of tenants? One tenant may be put forward and he does not like them and another tenant may be put forward and he does not like them either. How long can that go on for? The regulations permit the owner to object to the proposed order to the residential property tribunal. However, this may put him to considerable expense of legal and surveyors’ fees to protect himself from his property being put under an order. Will there be any compensation or costs available to him to help to oppose the local authority’s application? I apologise for this list of questions, but they remain unanswered. What sort of tenancy agreement is it proposed would be given under an interim order not lasting for more than one year, so by its very nature the tenancy would be short; and under the final order, which can be anything up to seven years? Will the agreement with the tenant be made with the local authority or the owner or with the manager of the property, whoever that may be? Will it be a licence or will it be subject to a limited tenure? What will be the tenant’s situation if the owner decides to sell the property within the duration of the order? Will he become the responsibility of the local authority and part of a priority housing list? I have considerable concern about the occupation of these properties, their terms and duration. While people may be grateful to have a home, even for a short time, these could be relatively short term and subject to limited tenancy rights. Of course I understand the dismay felt by neighbours about dilapidated or unoccupied properties, but to create a situation where an owner can be deprived of the right to make decisions about his own property, even if that can be done only with his agreement, is a serious step. It is hardly likely to be a measure which will have unalloyed co-operation. These orders will work only if the local authority is seen to be scrupulously fair in both its handling of the owner concerned and the management of the property and if the subsequent tenants know the limitation of their occupancy. I hope also that there will be effective monitoring of whether these orders become an acceptable and workable addition to the housing armoury. In her reply the Minister may like to tell us how this will be done. I felt it important to draw attention to these aspects. This is another step forward—quite a long step—in depriving people of their properties, even if they do have to consent to the orders being given. It is really important that we have an opportunity to discuss these issues. I beg to move. Moved to resolve, That this House calls upon Her Majesty’s Government to revoke the order laid before the House on 22 February (S.I. 2006/367) [26th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Baroness Hanham.)