|
Column Number: 131
Standing Committee E
Thursday 22 January 2004
(Afternoon)
[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]
2.30 pm
The Chairman: Order. I wish to draw attention to two matters; I hope that my doing so will be helpful to the Committee. Looking at the selection list and at where the next knife—or whatever we call it—falls, on Tuesday, we shall not have too big a debate. However, the Chair can never determine the merits and importance of various amendments, because that is for members of the Committee to determine. They will have their ideas about which matters they want to discuss and use their sense to ensure that we debate all provisions properly. I say that as guidance and I hope that it will be taken in such a spirit.
Secondly, if our debate goes to the time set for Tuesday afternoon, it will be a fairly long sitting. I will be in the Chair and, at a convenient point after about two and a half hours, it will be my intention that the Committee has a comfort break. I say that now so that people can bear it in mind and plan accordingly. It is helpful to members of the Committee to know what the Chairman has in mind.
Clause 44
Licensing of HMOs to which this Part applies
Mr. Robert Syms (Poole) (Con): I beg to move amendment No. 249, in
clause 44, page 28, line 30, leave out 'the following' and insert 'all'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 250, in
No. 227, in
Mr. Syms: Thank you, Mr. Pike. It is nice to see you back in the Chair as we move to the next part of the Bill. It is about houses in multiple occupation, which stirred up passions among many hon. Members who spoke on Second Reading, some of whom are members of the Committee. Indeed, the provision stirred up passions among some landlords who sometimes do not believe that they receive a fair crack of the whip.
Amendment No. 249 is simple; it would delete ''the following'' HMOs and insert ''all'' HMOs. It is a probing amendment and provides a good opportunity for the Government to explain briefly why they want to restrict the scope of the licensing regime as they have
Column Number: 132
in the Bill, when so many other organisations are involved in such matters. We all receive e-mails and have full postbags of letters from various campaigning groups that consider that the Bill is drawn too narrowly. Although it will be possible for local authorities to license some of the smaller HMOs voluntarily, at what point will the line be drawn? However, as we shall see from the Liberal amendment, there is a difference of opinion.
Many of us, particularly those who have student populations in their constituencies, have been lobbied by student organisations, which are a little upset that they have been excluded from the Bill. About 260,000 students live in university halls of residence and a further 800,000 students live in private rented accommodation, some of which is good and some less good. Students have made a powerful case to me that their accommodation should be covered.
Our amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to set out why the Government have decided to draw the line where they have. It might enable members of the Committee to elaborate on some topics to which I have referred. It is an important probing amendment. We must draw the line somewhere, but such matters were a major part of our debate on Second Reading—indeed, at the beginning of this part of the Bill, when we are talking of first principles before reaching the nitty-gritty, it is appropriate to ask important questions, because once the line is drawn and the Bill moves on, many people will be asking why. The amendment gives us an opportunity to place on the record the reasons why the Government have reached such conclusions.
Matthew Green (Ludlow) (LD): Amendment No. 227 is a Liberal Democrat amendment, but like the Conservative amendments it is a probing amendment that challenges the Government's thinking, not so much about the Bill, but about the accompanying regulations. We wonder what prompted the Government to restrict the licensing of HMOs to properties of three storeys with five or more occupants. I realise that there are other proposals for HMO licensing—before the Minister gets to his feet, I know that if an area has a problem, the council can apply for selective or additional licences. I realise also that additional licences could get around some of the problems of what has been called ''studentification''. However, concerns remain that the Government are setting the framework too tightly.
The framework is fairly new to the public. Labour's 1997 and 2001 manifestos make no mention of the mandatory licensing of HMOs being restricted to properties of at least three storeys with five or more occupants. I am sure that many of those who read the manifestos believed that licensing would apply to other properties, so some will be disappointed. The Minister may wish to explain how that fact was accidentally omitted from the manifestos. In 1998, the Department issued a consultation paper on HMO licensing; again, the threshold was not mentioned in the consultation paper.
Column Number: 133
Most tellingly, Government relied on the Entec report to pick out the most dangerous properties. I believe that the reasoning behind their desire to restrict the provision to properties of three floors or more and five or more occupants is that they are the most dangerous HMOs, but can the Minister say why the Entec research concludes that HMOs of three or more storeys but with only three or four occupants do not pose as high a risk as those with five or more occupants? I understand that the Entec report concludes that all three-storey HMOs pose a high risk, but I am particularly concerned about the question of the number of storeys.
There is considerable support for a broader definition of HMOs. Shelter would like to see a change, as would the National Union of Students, because most students not living in university accommodation occupy two-storey properties; they tend not to live in three-storey properties. Others would support a broader definition: for example, various HMO action groups have sent me e-mails and letters asking for a better definition.
The Entec report mentioned the risk to people in HMOs that would fall outside the Government's prescription. It states:
''this does not infer that risks in these HMOs''—
that is HMOs of less than three storeys—
''is negligible. Indeed, about 40 per cent. of the deaths in two-storey bedsits and shared houses occur on the floor above that of fire origin, demonstrating that there remains a risk of people being trapped by fires originating elsewhere in the building, particularly where the building is occupied by vulnerable persons. Also, 48 per cent. of all HMO fire deaths occur in buildings of one or two storeys.''
That suggests a significant problem, and one that occurs not only in properties with three or more floors.
The Government need to take the opportunity to explain their thinking, because people are concerned that Ministers are being over-prescriptive. I realise that making the change suggested by amendment No. 227 is not the way to do it—the Minister need not explain why the amendment would not work—but it allows him to explain the Government's position. If the Minister were to say, ''Actually, we are restricting licensing to HMOs with three floors and five or more occupants as a first stage because of the work involved, and then we will extend it,'' he might be met with some understanding. If he said that the scope of licensing will be extended in a year or two, people would have confidence that progress is possible. However, the Department has given no indication that it has any plans to do that.
Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East) (Lab): We have heard from my right hon. Friend the Minister that the vulnerability of the residents is an important consideration in the Bill, and I am sure that we all support that. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the vulnerability of many HMO residents who are not covered other than by the discretionary powers is a cause of concern?
Column Number: 134
Matthew Green: Yes, I agree entirely. My quote from the Entec report refers specifically to buildings occupied by vulnerable persons. Many such buildings have one or two storeys rather than three storeys, so a whole group could be excluded.
I hope that the Minister will be positive and assure the Committee that the Government intend to widen the scope of the measure and that this is an interim stage to allow the system to get going. Some proactive councils might come to the Government and say, ''We would like to extend licensing to this group of housing in Bournbrook in Selly Oak'', or the centre of Cardiff, or places of a certain scale such as those. However, my concern is that a lot of HMOs will be in areas that—unlike the places that I have just mentioned—are not full of other HMOs. Such areas will get missed and will not have the advantages of HMO licensing, because councils will not come forward with additional licensing proposals for them.
Geraldine Smith (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab): I have some sympathy with the comments made by the hon. Members for Poole (Mr. Syms) and for Ludlow (Matthew Green). I have some concerns myself; I would like the Government to license all HMOs, but I understand why they have not. We should congratulate the Government on making a good start with the HMO registration scheme, which will be helpful in my constituency.
I seek clarification from the Minister on one or two points. Why do the Government not feel that it is necessary to license all HMOs? I appreciate that they have given councils the discretion to do so in areas where there may be a problem. There certainly is a problem in parts of my constituency, such as the west end of Morecambe, where it might be appropriate to license all HMOs.
The criteria of three or more storeys and five occupants puzzle me. Eight people could be living in appalling conditions in a two-storey HMO that would not have to be licensed. What difference does an extra storey make? I am also concerned that if there are basement flats, they will not be considered to be a storey. Some of the most appalling conditions that I have come across in my constituency were in basement flats with problems of damp, flooding and so on. A basement should count as a storey. In Morecambe, there are many two-storey houses with garret flats. Are they to be considered three-storey or two-storey houses? I would like clarification on that. The vast majority of HMOs in my constituency are built in that fashion.
Once again, I congratulate the Government, and the Minister in particular, although I did not think that he had a good record on accommodation when he was deputy Chief Whip—
|
