|
Richard Younger-Ross (Teignbridge) (LD): Will the Minister give way?
Keith Hill: Of course, although I am not used to gazing that far down the Room.
Richard Younger-Ross: The Minister says that he does not think it right that the authorities should make a profit from the fees. Will he impose regulations to prevent them doing so?
Keith Hill: It is not our intention to introduce a regulation to that effect, although it is fair that the licensing fee should cover the cost of the operation of the scheme in a particular locality. That reinforces the point that these are horses-for-courses costs for specific localities: we are intent, in the spirit of new localism, to leave the matter to local authorities. Such an approach will also be an incentive for good landlords to work with local authorities in the run-up to the introduction of licensing: that would benefit all involved.
The Chairman: Order. I am getting the impression that the Minister needs inspiration.
Keith Hill: I dare say that, not for the first time, it will wing its way to me in due course. Here it comes:
Column Number: 217
the US cavalry rides to the rescue. If I need to correct anything that I have said, I will do so. We are pretty relaxed. I am advised that the matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred is in the Bill already. We should all have known that. It is in clause 52(7). I was going to deal with that.
I return to amendment No. 273. The hon. Member for Ludlow chastised the Conservative amendments for their centralising tendency. He is right, but I have sometimes had occasion to remark that the Liberal Democrats are not immune from the same regulatory tendency. The amendment would constrain local authorities and would require that the conditions that they could impose could only be those that the appropriate national authority considers to be appropriate. The amendment therefore seems to presume that the appropriate national authority would prescribe in a more detailed way than is currently provided for in clause 56(2) and schedule 4.
Unamended, the clause is about the scope that local authorities have for imposing conditions on a licence. Once again, the official Opposition want to restrict the scope of local authorities and require central Government to make the most prescriptive provisions. The scope that local authorities may have is indicated, and therefore somewhat limited, by clause 56(2). Central Government have been most prescriptive in relation to subsection (3) and schedule 4, which refer to the conditions that a licence ''must'' have.
The amendment would mean that the Government would also prescribe an approved list of conditions that might be included by a local authority in a licence. We do not see that the appropriate national authority is better placed than local authorities—as moderated by the housing tribunal on appeal—to determine the sort of conditions that are applicable, and to do so for all local authorities.
In light of those observations, I invite the hon. Member for Poole to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Syms: We are learning a lot about the Bill's implications. The £110 charge per bedsit threw a lot of light on what local authorities could charge. Somebody inspecting a large property in London with 100 or 200 properties could charge £15,000 or £20,000 for doing so, compared with £200 or £300 for a small property. Presumably, if an inspector went into a large property and found that in a number of flats everything including the wiring was fine, it would not be necessary for them to look into every flat, so it would probably be more profitable to inspect 100 or 200 properties because one would quickly get a clear idea of whether the block was well maintained or able to meet the standards. I thank the Minister for the points that he has made. He mentioned that 40p per week was not an awful lot per property, and that it is payable for five years. On that basis, I am minded to withdraw the amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for enlightening us on that part of the process. I am sure that we will return to the matter, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 218
Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54
Tests as to suitability for multiple occupation
3.30 pm
Mr. Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 269, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 257, in
clause 54, page 35, line 25, leave out 'and'.
Amendment No. 258, in
clause 54, page 35, line 26, after 'facilities', insert ', and'.
Amendment No. 259, in
Amendment No. 270, in
Mr. Hayes: Amendments Nos. 269 and 270 define the tests as to suitability for multiple occupation more precisely. They identify health and safety considerations—which are at the heart of the purpose of parts 1 and 2—at the very core of the clause. Amendment No. 270 returns us to fire, as it specifically adds the standard of susceptibility to fire hazards to subsection (4).
In our consideration of part 1, we discussed hazard and risk of fire in relation to health and safety. In our discussion of part 2, it is important to be mindful that the licensing regime should be consistent with our considerations in Committee and the way in which the Bill reflects those subjects. The more explicit we can be in the Bill, the better. Our amendment is certainly explicit: it relates the tests for susceptibility of multiple occupation specifically to those health and safety issues. Fire has been used on several occasions to justify some of the Government's proper concerns about HMOs and housing standards in general. It would be bizarre if the Minister were to reject an amendment that makes large and specifically addresses the very concerns that he has highlighted.
The amendments are helpful and entirely consistent with the purpose of part 2, and on that basis I would be amazed if the Minister were to resist them.
Matthew Green: Three amendments in the group stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Although I have considerable sympathy with amendment No. 270, I have none for amendment No. 269, which would, as I understand it, limit the prescribed standards to those relating only to health and safety. The difficulty is that some of the issues related to suitability do not necessarily come under those two headings, or it is difficult to prove that they do so.
My amendments Nos. 257, 258 and 259 are essentially one amendment. All deal with overcrowding, which has been touched on before.
Column Number: 219
Many people—including some Conservative Members—have spoken about overcrowding and its associated problems. These problems relate not only to safety or health, but to the educational attainment of young children, people's ability to put in a good day's work if they have not slept all night, and similar issues.
I hope that the Government might be moved to realise that they have an opportunity to make an impact on overcrowding. Including the number, type and quality of bedrooms and sleeping areas in the standards that can be prescribed would ensure that when an HMO is licensed, it cannot subsequently be overcrowded. I would have thought the Minister would want to make sure of that, but as things stand there is nothing to stop an HMO being licensed and for conditions then to become overcrowded. Then, we would have to revisit the 1935 legislation that there have been so many calls to adjust.
Mr. Hayes: All that would be fine if previous amendments on overcrowding had been accepted, but the fact is that the attempts of the Opposition—and of some Labour Members—to insert overcrowding as a central consideration in earlier parts of the Bill were largely resisted by the Minister, although I acknowledge that the new fitness standard makes some reference to overcrowding. The hon. Gentleman criticises our amendment 269, but surely he does not assume that clause 54(4)(a)(i), which refers to
''bathrooms, toilets, washbasins and showers''
is about aesthetic considerations? We are not talking about the colour of the tiles—we are talking about health, safety and hygiene. Are not health and safety implicit in the clause, and would the clause not be weakened by our amendment being rejected out of hand?
Matthew Green: My point is that the amendment would obstruct the amendments that I have tabled, which relate to the number and quality of bedrooms and sleeping areas, because it would be difficult to prove the health and safety grounds of overcrowding. Many problems of overcrowding cannot immediately be ascribed to health and safety categories. Although overcrowding may have health and safety implications, they would not be the sole criteria. If the Minister were foolish enough to accept amendment 269, it would prevent overcrowding legislation being brought in. As the Bill is framed, it would allow my aims to be achieved through secondary legislation, but I want them on the face of the Bill because I—and other hon. Members, I am sure—would prefer to see the provisions in statute, rather than have to wait for secondary legislation.
Ms Keeble: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that overcrowding is relevant to clause 113 onwards, and that it might be possible to do something there? I have already tabled an amendment on the matter.
Matthew Green: There are certainly overcrowding issues to be dealt with in relation to clause 113, and if the hon. Lady waits patiently, she may well discover that we support her amendment. That is probably enough to ensure the Minister will not accept it, though perhaps I am being too cynical.
Column Number: 220
We are making another attempt to get the overcrowding addressed in the Bill, and dealt with at the very point when we have the greatest control over a property—the point at which a decision is made on whether to license an HMO.
|
