Housing Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. Hayes: The Minister is right that registered disabled people, particularly chronically and permanently disabled people, are best dealt with by a variety of means—home adaptations, typically, as suggested by the hon. Member for Northampton,

Column Number: 065

North. However, the Minister will also know that the estimated number of disabled people in this country varies between 6.8 million and 8.5 million. A very large number of people are not registered disabled and are not chronically disabled, but may be temporarily disabled. They may have a dynamic disability of one sort or another, which is changing, and their needs may change accordingly. They may have moderate learning difficulties. They may fall into all sorts of categories. They may be temporarily very ill. They will have housing needs, be subject to hazards and be vulnerable in a way that the Bill should identify and cope with. Only by defining ability and disability using a different kind of evidence-based approach will we get to the people that we need to reach if we are to make the Bill work to best effect.

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not the least bit unsympathetic to his motives, and I do not suppose that any member of the Committee is, but the very generality of his description of the people to whom the provisions might apply and the lack of definition demonstrate the weakness of his case. It is impossible to put into statute a requirement for which there is no definition.

That said, let us revert to the discussion about the way in which the inspector exercises judgment. As any of us would, I would expect the inspector, at the final point in considering particular premises or property, identifying the defects and making the calculation of risk and the judgment about the danger of the defect, to take the circumstances of the occupant into account, but that is about the best that one could go for. Otherwise, we would undermine the scientific or at least quasi-scientific basis and the attempt to get it right.

We are right to go down the road of trying to inject an objective element into the process of assessing when action needs to be taken in order to get stock into a safer condition, but we must not push it too far. We must not lay extra elements on a process that was never intended for those purposes. For all those reasons, I shall resist the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings.

Mr. Syms: The Minister has been very helpful. I was trying to tease out the difference between an actual and a potential tenant, and the Minister said that conditions could be added for a particular property. My only question is whether that would be made public. If a report were written on a property saying that the heating was substandard, would that information be available to a young couple with a baby before they undertook to take that property? Would the information be on a public register or would the landlord have to provide it? That seems to be the chink in the armour. If a report were written and the property was not appropriate for a family with two young babies, such a family should know that before they take the property off the landlord.

Keith Hill: I entirely agree. An enforcement action—I think that the technical expression is a ''land charge''—would be on the public register and be a consideration in the acquisition of any of the properties. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's

Column Number: 066

question is yes. Such information is in the public domain; it is available from the local authority.

I do not want to detain the Committee much longer. I have certainly heard enough of my voice; even I am getting bored with it. I shall turn rapidly to the other amendments. Amendment No. 177 would add ''physical and environmental'' health to the definition of health. To add ''physical'' is unnecessary as health is defined under subsection (5) as including mental health. That does not mean that physical health is excluded. Health must include physical harm or it means nothing. Environmental health is dealt with by the health and safety rating system and is represented, for example, by hazards from pollutants.

4.15 pm

Amendments Nos. 184, 185 and 186 are similar to amendment No. 176 and are not necessary. Regulations under clause 2 need to be clearly defined to ensure the efficient operation of the system. Finally, amendment No. 216 tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton would require piloting of the health and safety rating system before regulations to implement it are laid before Parliament. I must say to him, however, that version 1 of the system has been available for three and a half years since July 2000. It has been well tested and lessons have been learned.

Version 2 does not change the fundamental principles behind the system or the methodology that the inspector needs to follow. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that we will consult on the regulations before they are laid before Parliament, so that there will be further opportunities to fine-tune the system. I understand that some environmental health officers are a little nervous at the prospect of changing from a standards-based regime to one of risk assessment. Candidly, however, I am not willing to delay implementation. We have waited 18 years for the Bill and I am strengthened in my view by support for the speedy introduction of the housing health and safety rating system by the British Medical Association. For all of those cogent reasons, I urge the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Hayes: Others may want to speak, but will I presume that they do not. By way of concluding this debate, I wish to say that I welcome what the Minister said about the discretion that is at heart of the proper enforcement process described in the proposals and debated in Committee. I will quote from the consultation document on enforcement guidance. He reminded us that the purpose of the assessment

''is not to set a standard but to generate objective information in order to determine and inform enforcement decisions.''

Essentially, the numerical analysis exists to provide the data following which a decision will be made.

In that respect, I am grateful for the Minister's comments about consideration of other vulnerable groups, which will undoubtedly form part of that informed judgment along with the numerical criteria and other observations and considerations. Issues relating to disabled or chronically sick people, people with learning difficulties or other groups of people that

Column Number: 067

I have described would become evident to the officer involved in the enforcement process. I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that that such matters will be taken into account when reaching an informed judgment. Based on that assurance and to speed up matters, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Local housing authorities to review housing conditions in their districts

Mr. Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 178, in

clause 3, page 3, line 34, leave out 'At least'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 217, in

clause 3, page 3, line 34, leave out

'At least once in every year'

and insert

'Within a year of the implementation of this Act of Parliament.'.

Amendment No. 179, in

clause 3, page 3, line 34, leave out 'consider' and insert 'review'.

Amendment No. 180, in

clause 3, page 3, line 36, at end insert—

'(1A) Following the review the authority will have responsibility to make public a report on housing in their district.

(1B) Before any action is taken they must publish what action they will take.

(1C) In respect of discretionary licensing the authority should publish details of their intentions prior to their enforcement'.

Amendment No. 218, in

clause 3, page 3, line 36, at end insert—

'(1A) Subsequent to complying with (1) above, a local authority must consider the housing conditions in their district with a view to determining what action to take under the provisions mentioned in subsection (2), at least once every two years.'.

Amendment No. 181, in

clause 3, page 4, line 10, after 'specify', insert

'(c) issue an annual report'.

Amendment No. 219, in

clause 3, page 3, line 42, at end insert—

'(v) any sections as they relate to empty residential premises'.

New clause 2—Empty Homes (Management orders)—

'The Secretary of State will by order introduce a scheme for Empty Homes Management Orders within 12 months of Royal Assent, subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses.'.

Mr. Hayes: Having debated the process by which the business of assessing the housing stock will be conducted, we now move to how the local authority will do that. The amendments that I hope to persuade the Committee to accept deal with the regularity with which the authority undertakes reviews and the means by which it makes the information available to others.

Column Number: 068

The Minister has seen amendments Nos. 178 to 180. Amendment No. 178 sets us somewhere between the Government and the Liberal Democrats, which is a happy position to be in. The Liberal Democrats want the local authority to review its housing stock occasionally—every two years, they propose. The Government are more pressing, suggesting that it should be at least an annual process.

We, as ever, take a measured view, sensitive to the needs of our colleagues in local government, but at the same time defending the needs of the public. Therefore, we suggest dropping the words ''at least'' and leaving the Bill stipulating that there must be a yearly review of housing stock. We say review, because the process should consist of more than a simple consideration. That brings us to the essence of the group, our amendment No. 180. I have disregarded the Liberal amendments because I do not agree with them and because I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton will speak in their defence.

We make two proposals in amendment No. 180. The first is that the authority should make public the report on housing in its area. Therefore, a review of housing should take place and there should be a degree of public understanding, knowledge and scrutiny of what the local authority is doing. That seems important, given some of the things that have been discussed. It will be a big change, and with it will come a comprehensive analysis of a range of issues associated with the housing in a given area. We have had long discussions about both the material condition of some properties and the relationship between those properties and the status of their occupants. Given the fundamental nature of the change and its significance—the Minister has, rightly, made great play of its importance—a degree of public involvement would be highly desirable. It is important that the review be a published document, available for inspection and subject to proper public scrutiny. That is our reason for the first part of the amendment.

Not only should the authority make clear what it has done to review its stock—so that people know that it is behaving properly and doing the job as well as it can be expected to do—and get a feel for the housing stock in the area, on which it might base all kinds of judgments and decisions, but it is equally important that we play fair by landlords. Lethargy is possible in a local authority—certainly not in a Conservative-controlled one, but perhaps in one that is Liberal Democrat-controlled—and so too is over-zealousness. The authority should also be responsible for scrutiny of its proposed actions.

The Minister was anxious to point out to the Committee that the private rented sector is fragile and that he is reticent to pile any more burdens on that sector. I well understand his argument. It is equally true that we need to reassure the private rented sector about the implications of the legislation. The Committee will be aware of the fears among landlords about some aspects of the Bill. It is not that they do not support the idea of bringing housing up to a decent standard and ensuring that the small minority of irresponsible landlords are dealt with harshly, or any other of the Bills proposals. However,

Column Number: 069

they are slightly worried that the power of enforcement that the Minister describes, which we have debated, and licensing—which we shall debate later and which I shall not go into now because you would not let me, Mr. Pike—will be too heavy a hand. I do not necessarily share that view, but I believe it to be important that it is articulated and taken into account by the Committee.

The Minister's desire to ensure that we do not discourage the private rented sector is most welcome and should reassure those in that sector that the implementation of the Bill will be equitable and measured, as he assured us it would be. It is important that local authorities reflect that sort of measured approach, and make it clear what they will do on the basis of what they have done. In other words, they must clarify what enforcement action they intend to take based on their review of their housing stock.

We made a judgment about public involvement and about reassuring landlords, and we were stimulated to table an amendment that would require the local authority to make public a report on housing in its district and to publish what action it intends to take before that action is taken. That would serve those dual purposes and would improve the Bill. It would make the legislation more palatable and more widely understood, and it would perhaps cut across some of the complexity with which local authorities and we are faced when dealing with this matter, and which many landlords, let alone the wider public, find incomprehensible. In those interests, and in the interests of transparency, objectivity and clarity so well articulated by the Minister, the Government would do well to embrace the amendments with enthusiasm and vigour, because I believe that they would improve the Bill.

 

---

Prepared 20 January 2004