|
Column Number: 041
Standing Committee E
Tuesday 20 January 2004
(Afternoon)
[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]
2.30 pm
The Chairman: Before I start the proceedings, I assure Members—male Members, that is—that they are entitled to remove their jackets. It will save me time if they do not ask me whether they can do so in future when I am in the Chair. I am relaxed about people taking off their jackets. Clause 1
New system for assessing housing conditions and enforcing housing standards
Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 3, in
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Government amendments Nos. 4 to 7.
Government amendment No. 10.
Amendment No. 221, in
Government amendments Nos. 11 to 15.
Government amendment No. 20.
Government new clause 4—Emergency remedial action.
Government new clause 5—Notice of emergency remedial action.
Government new clause 6—Recovery of expenses of taking emergency remedial action.
Government new clause 7—Emergency prohibition orders.
Government new clause 8—Contents of emergency prohibition orders.
Government new clause 9—Appeals relating to emergency measures.
I believe that Mr. Davey had the Floor when the Committee adjourned this morning.
Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD): Thank you, Mr. Pike. It is a great privilege to welcome you to the Chair, but I believe that I had sat down, and that the Minister for Housing and Planning was nearing the end of his comments—indeed, it is possible that he had sat down and that we were getting close to a decision. That is my recollection.
Column Number: 042
The Chairman: And here I had hoped to hear some scintillating comment from the hon. Gentleman. I call the Minister.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): Let me concur in two respects with the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). First, I, too, extend a warm welcome to you as Chairman, Mr. Pike. I have had the pleasure of serving under your expert, wise and benevolent chairmanship on many occasions. I look forward to you exercising all those wonderful qualities in our proceedings. Secondly, I concur with him that I had concluded my observations.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 4, in
clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out 'ones' and insert 'kinds of enforcement action'.—[Keith Hill.]
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Davey: Several issues have not been covered under the two groups of amendments, and I would like to examine them now.
I welcome the new rating system. A lot of research and consultation has gone into it, and most outside experts and local authorities say that we are moving towards getting it right. There are some details from which we shall try to iron out the final wrinkles—we will come to them in the next and other clauses—but it is worth putting it on the record that the system is an improvement. However, there may be an argument to be made in relation to a later set of amendments on how we should introduce the version 2 guidance, because that version has not yet been piloted and tested. Overall, the experience of piloting version 1 has led to some improvements—as, of course, has the Select Committee's report.
I have a pretty fundamental question about the process for the Minister. There is a debate about adopting a numerical system that relies on calculations to produce a number, and about the extent to which that will allow environmental health officers to exercise discretion and judgment. The old system was very much judgment-based, although there were lots of guidelines and advice. In the early stages of developing the new system, the Government tried to operate a purely numerical system, but the experience of the version 1 pilot caused them to change to a system that aims to combine numerical assessments and judgments. Perhaps the Minister can say a little bit more about that on the record.
Although there are references to it in the guidance—which is great reading for people who are having problems getting to sleep at night—it would be good if the Minister clearly told those environmental health officers who are worried by the new numerical system that their judgment will decide whether something is a category 1 or a category 2 hazard. That is important, not only to assuage their concerns, but because the Minister knows that if it were just a numerical value that determined how the rating system worked, there would be a danger that legal challenges would focus on the details of the calculation.
Column Number: 043
Although the version 2 guidance notes are admirably clear, the idea that the calculation is incontestable would not stand up in court. There is a great deal of judgment within the calculations, so there would be problems pretending that it is totally scientific and numerically led. Of course, the Government have moved from a single figure to a banding system, about which we will say more during the debate on the next clause. However, even if something falls into one of the bands, it is still ultimately the judgment—not the score—that puts it there. That point must be clarified. It is important that the Minister puts that on the record, because it will be fundamental to how the system is introduced and administered.
Although we now have the version 2 guidance, I should like the Minister to make it clear that the Government are taking a flexible approach to operation. In an earlier response to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), the Minister said that it was important to show that there is certainty in the framework. I agree. However, we want flexibility within certainty. In other words, if the version 2 guidance tell us that the system is not up to snuff, and the Government have the powers under the Bill that I think they do, we should ensure that the system can be tweaked in the light of the experience of the implementation of version 2.
There are other points to be made about the system, but I shall make them in relation to other clauses. I shall focus on the principal issues arising from the shift from the old fitness standards to the new rating system. If the Minister can reassure the Committee that it is not just a calculations-based system, we should, in principle, let the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East) (Lab): I warmly welcome the introduction of the housing health and safety rating system. I am sure that most people agree that it is a big improvement on the existing housing fitness system. I particularly welcome the emphasis on safety as well as health and the introduction in more than 24 categories to which inspectors will have to pay attention of items such as lead pipes, asbestos, radiation, carbon monoxide, and so on.
Section 606 of the Housing Act 1985, which requires local authorities to submit a written report to the authority on the unfitness of properties and the potential for clearance of those properties, and requires the authority to consider the reports, will be repealed and replaced by clause 4 of this Bill, which we shall discuss later. That only requires local authority officers to inspect premises on receipt of a complaint from a justice of the peace, or a parish or community council. My right hon. Friend the Minister has already explained to a small degree how that would work.
I am mainly concerned about the costs, which are highlighted in the regulatory impact assessment of the Bill and reported on page 29 of the Library research document. It states that
Column Number: 044
''The annual total cost, in England and Wales, of works carried out''
by local authorities to meet the requirements of the new HHSRS scheme
''is estimated as approximately £260m, at 2001 prices.''
Costs under the present housing fitness arrangements are £470 million. There is a staggering difference of £210 million, with the sum decreasing from present to future. I am concerned about that, but there might be a simple explanation for it, and that is what I seek.
To put the point another way, over a 30-year period the net present value of complying with the new scheme is calculated to be £4.8 million, compared with £8.7 million for the housing fitness standards. That is a considerable difference. I hope that we will not spend a lot less on the needs of people who live in poor-standard housing.
I am sorry if I have put my right hon. Friend on the spot. I can wait for the answer to my question if he has not got it for me now. However, I am concerned about those figures.
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): I shall raise three issues at this juncture. First, I will say a few words about the contribution of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). He makes an important point, which was not lost on the Opposition when we were studying the documents to which he referred. We will have another opportunity to discuss the matter, as there are later amendments on issues relating to the training and resourcing of local authorities to deal with enforcement matters. However, there is an incredible quality to the savings projected in the documents, and that raises a concern, which the hon. Gentleman articulated, about whether there will be adequate resources for us to make improvements, rather than stand still—or, indeed, move in the wrong direction.
The second issue relates to the comments made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. There is a problem relating to specificity. There is a tension between having an appropriate discretion to deal with matters with sensitivity—I am sure that those responsible for enforcing the measures will want to exercise that—and having a system that is sufficiently clear that everyone understands what they have to do to enforce it, and those at the other end of process understand what is being forced upon them. In this morning's sitting the Minister for Housing and Planning talked about objectivity and transparency, but that transparency is best delivered by a system that is clear and easily understood, and in which things are well defined. The numerical system that has been proposed might satisfy those entirely proper concerns.
Although I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, having examined the matter and the relevant documents, and having received the briefing that was made available to hon. Members, I am inclined to be in favour of a clear numerical system that everyone understands and that can be applied with consistency. I say that not least because while it is important that there is discretion to take account of local circumstances, it would worry me if different local authorities dealing with the same
Column Number: 045
landlord but different houses were applying entirely different systems. Although it is important to be flexible, there is a strong case for consistency. On Second Reading, I said that it would be unacceptable if a landlord with houses in several different areas were subject to a range of different regimes. We can discuss that when we come on to later parts of the Bill on licensing and so forth.
That point also applies to fitness standards. It would be inappropriate if there were a wide range of fitness standards that are applied in different ways by different authorities. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was implying that, and he certainly was not advocating it. However, it may be the consequence of his well meaning but perhaps misplaced concerns.
| 
