| Housing Bill
|
|
Mr. Hayes: I am sympathetic to the Minister; he makes a strong case about the need for clarity. However, will some kind of safety valve be considered at a later stage? The Minister says that there have been problems, which he has been right to identify, with the interpretation of earlier legislation. That means that the Government need to look closely at such matters, because problems that we cannot predict may yet arise from this definition. It is important for the purposes of clarity that the specifics of HMOs are defined, but there is little room for manoeuvre. The Minister says that there are other parts of the Bill under which the Government can govern by regulation, but I wonder whether a slight loosening of the definition is necessary to allow a degree of discretion in the event of disputes. Keith Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which I know is meant to be genuinely constructive. I am not sure that I will be able to satisfy him entirely. However, later parts of the Bill will provide the opportunity for further discussion of HMOs and definitions, and those debates might be the occasion for further exploration of such issues. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the need to legislate for cases that may arise. I often say—although I have not had the opportunity to do so in connection with this Bill—that most legislation is about what may happen, rather than what will happen. It is ''what-iffery'', in which law-makers, such as we, try to envisage situations that may arise and suggest how they may be dealt with. It is legitimate to say that we should concern ourselves with cases that may arise, but we will revert to that in later discussions. I am conscious that I have spoken at length, but I hope that the Committee will accept the reason for our an approach to this matter. I ask the hon. Member for Ludlow to withdraw his amendment. Matthew Green: The Minister's answer on amendment No. 242 was satisfactory, particularly because he gave the categorical assurance that Column Number: 181 properties used for housing asylum seekers will not be exempted unless they are in the hands of a local authority or a registered social landlord. I hope that he sticks to that assurance when the Home Office beats a path to his door, as I suspect it will at some stage, saying, ''We really must be able to house them in dreadful conditions, because we have got too many of them to deal with and we cannot process them fast enough.'' I am sure that the Minister's words would be used if, for example, any regulations came forward suggesting that they should be exempted. I am glad that he will hold firm on that; it is a considerable reassurance.As the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said, one of the difficulties with student accommodation is that there is, perhaps, insufficient detailed evidence. Although it is said many times that things have happened, we do not know where or when, or any other details. The most disturbing aspect is the potential for universities to bully students. We might want to return to that matter on Report, so it may be best if it is left for the moment. I am glad that after the Minister had his initial moment of fun, he realised why I had tabled amendment No. 244. There is ambiguity concerning leasehold and freehold properties. Hopefully, some clarification will be winging its way to us on Report; I foresee a Government amendment moving in one direction or another. The Minister has, however, satisfied me on amendment No. 237, and I agree with what he said. I am still somewhat baffled about why this measure needs to be defined so strongly when the Minister seeks so much regulation for others. Because this provision is included, he has left himself open to being asked—every time we come to wording that says ''the Minister will, by regulation, introduce a measure''—why something is not included in the Bill,. I suppose that consistency is difficult to achieve in government, so it would, perhaps, be unkind to push that matter further. Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab): Amendment No. 244 would leave out paragraph 7, but if somebody were living with their family in a property under a long lease and they had the protection regarding overcrowding, sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) would apply. Why is that different from somebody living in a freehold property who is bound by the same thing? This would be exactly the same. Matthew Green: They are not treated the same. Paragraph 7 specifically exempts from the Bill properties where there is a long lease holder. There is no equivalent for freehold properties. Ms Keeble: My understanding is that people living on their own or with their family in a freehold property will not come under the HMO restriction. If someone living with their family has a long lease, where they have the right to buy, they will not be treated as living in an HMO, which would seem to me to be complete parity. Column Number: 182
10 amMatthew Green: The hon. Lady is somewhat confused. I gave an example of student accommodation in London—a building of three storeys or more with five or more people living in it, one of whom is the leaseholder. That would be excluded; but if one person were the freeholder and the other people were tenants, it would not be excluded from the Bill. Ms Keeble: I would like to return to sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). If the person is living in a leasehold property with their family, the building is exempt: but if they have sub-tenants, the situation is wholly different. The treatment is exactly the same. Matthew Green: I am not sure the hon. Lady is right. Schedule 9 is about ''Buildings which are not HMOs''. There is no equivalent of paragraph 7 for freeholders—it is only for leaseholders. The point of the amendment was to ask the Minister to explain why freeholders and leaseholders are treated differently. Freehold properties are not stated to be buildings that are not HMOs where there are a number of tenants. The provision specifically exempts the situation where there is a leaseholder—one person, or one family—and a number of tenants in the same building. That building is exempt from being an HMO because there is a leaseholder occupying the property. The same building if the family occupying it owned the freehold will apparently not be exempt from being an HMO. I am asking for clarity. The Minister admitted that there might be some ambiguity in the provision, which is precisely why I tabled the amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has agreed to have a look at the issue and come back with, if not a potential amendment, then some form of clarification. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Schedule 9 agreed to. Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 238, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 239, in
Amendment No. 241, in
Matthew Green: I will be brief. Are the Government being sexist? Why does the provision refer to a ''women's refuge'' rather than just a ''refuge''? Forty per cent. of violence in the home is committed against men, and it is not unknown for the man to leave the household, taking the children with him. Other parts of the Bill talk about ''persons'' rather than ''women'', so why are refuges called ''women's refuges? The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): I have a considerable amount of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. Clause 192 sets out what Column Number: 183 buildings are relevant for the purposes of the meaning of HMO in clause 191. In particular clause 192 provides that a women's refuge falls within the definition. Clause 195 provides for the circumstances in which persons occupy a building as their main or only residence, which includes occupation of a women's refuge.In clause 192(5) which defines this type of hostel, it is very clear that the definition of person using the facility is not gender specific, so no court would determine that a hostel housing men escaping from violence should be treated differently from one housing women. I am also advised that section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 gives a presumption that in any Act of Parliament reference to the feminine gender includes the masculine gender unless the contrary intention appears. No contrary intention appears in the Bill; indeed, the opposite appears in clause 192(5), to which I have already referred. The practical impact of the clause will not be to discriminate in any way between men and women. The term ''women's refuge'' is in the Bill because it is a generic term that is well understood to mean a secure place to which people suffering the threat of physical violence or mental abuse resort to escape that. I am happy to look further for a gender-neutral description of such a hostel, but I give the assurance that regardless of the term used in subsection (4)(b), the impact of the clause will be gender neutral and that that is the intention behind the provision. On that basis I urge the hon. Member for Ludlow to withdraw the amendment. Matthew Green: As the Minister will examine the issue and as it is clear that the group of amendments is not substantive, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 192 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 27 January 2004 |
