Home Energy Conservation Bill

Public Bill Committee, 26 February 2002.

Standing Committee C

Home Energy Conservation Bill

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

I beg to move,

That, if proceedings on the Home Energy Conservation Bill are not concluded at this morning's sitting, the Committee do meet again this day at half-past Four o'clock.

I must crave your indulgence, I fear, Mr. Benton. I ask the Committee, in addition to agreeing to the sittings motion, to agree to adjourn our proceedings until 11.45 am, as the Minister has to be elsewhere to deal with unexpected difficulties.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

May I point out that the appropriate technical word is ''suspend'', not ''adjourn''?

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

I beg your pardon, Mr. Benton.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

We accept that a Department that deals with flooding and foot and mouth, as well as fridges, needs its Ministers back in the office now and again. We do not oppose the sittings motion because we want time to discuss the entire Bill. We understand the Minister's difficulties and agree to the sittings motion and to the request for our sitting to be suspended.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I assure hon. Members that the request for an adjournment of the Committee until 11.45 am has nothing to do with BSE, foot and mouth or fridges—or, indeed, any other particular issue. However, the need for me to be elsewhere is pressing and I am grateful for the Committee's understanding. I look forward to making progress on the Bill at 11.45 am.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

Clause 4 - Guidance on eradication of fuel poverty

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

I do not intend to move amendments Nos. 20 to 25, as they would cease to be relevant if new clause 8 replaced clause 4. Some believe that clause 4 is unnecessary, as its provisions are already in legislation. Although clause 4 contains weaknesses, I am confident that it is necessary. However, I am not confident that the drafting makes explicit the duty on local authorities with regard to fuel poverty.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to take new clause 8—Fuel Poverty—

'(1) It shall be the duty of every energy conservation authority, so far as is reasonably practicable, to—

(a) discharge its functions under sections 2 or 5 of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 (preparation of reports or further reports), and

(b) carry out its duty pursuant to section 1 of this Act in such a way as to complement and support the appropriate authority's strategy for the time being for the eradication of fuel poverty made under the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000.

(2) The appropriate authority may from time to time give guidance to energy conservation authorities in relation to the discharge of their functions under subsection (1) above (and such guidance may differ for different authorities or different types of authority).'

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

New clause 8 makes explicit the link between the role of local authorities and the implementation of the Government's fuel poverty strategy. The Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000—another private Member's Bill—drives that strategy. We therefore continue to build on private Member's legislation, which has dominated the field.

Local authorities should have a pivotal role in delivering the strategy. After all, they best know the circumstances of their boroughs and cities, and are best able to do what is necessary to co-ordinate available resources and to direct them to best effect. New clause 8 would not call upon fresh resources. We would get into difficulty with the Government if we implied that the Treasury would have to spend vast extra sums for which it had not budgeted. The new clause would make more effective use of the resources that are already available under the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 to remove fuel poverty. It would also give the Minister the power to issue guidance to local authorities on how best to achieve such a result.

I hope that the principles in the clause will be acceptable to the Committee.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I do not intend to sound a note of dissension in what has been an harmonious Committee, but there is some order, counter-order and disorder about what has been going on, especially if we bear in mind that it is a few days since the Committee's last sitting. I hoped that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) and the Government might have come to a clearer decision about which clauses and amendments we would be considering. However, I do not want to introduce a sour note, as I am pleased to continue to offer my party's broad support for this part of the Bill.

Members of the Committee have commented on the quality of the constructive dialogue and the cross-party support. Today's debate will prove crucial in that respect as we attempt to analyse the Government's suggested amendments to parts 2 and 3. It was evident in our debate on part 1 that hon. Members were not prepared to let the Government pledge one thing in public and do the opposite in the quiet of the Committee Room. I am pleased to note that the Government spectacularly failed in their attempt to neuter the Bill's provisions for energy efficiency.

The Government sought to omit the fuel poverty section of the Bill entirely and I am perplexed about why they should have attempted to do so. In

November, Age Concern statistics showed that 77 per cent of single pensioners and 43 per cent of older couples, of whom at least one is of pensioner age, are fuel poor. In Committee and on the Floor of the House, members of the Committee have praised the Bill's attempt to give local energy conservation authorities an increased sense of purpose and conviction to ensure that the fuel poverty strategy is adhered to and that targets are met.

As the explanatory notes set out, the Government must implement a strategy to end fuel poverty within 15 years, yet local authorities have identified problems in relations between local and central Government that have led to an unco-ordinated approach in efforts to meet that target. Indeed, the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, subsequently sought to strengthen the Bill's impact in that respect and tabled amendments to replace all references to powers of enforcement from ''the Secretary of State'' with references to the ''appropriate authority'', although I recognise that his little speech a few moments ago may slightly amend that. However, ''appropriate authority'' is in the text of new clause 8.

The problem of governmental co-ordination has been highlighted for some time. Warm Zones Ltd., commenting on the difference in approaches to the eradication of fuel poverty by various local authorities, stated:

''The fuel poverty return has been ignored by many local authorities. The consistency, adequacy, monitoring and enforcement of local authority performance on both fuel poverty and energy efficiency appear to need thorough review.''

The Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), bound the Government to implement the previously mentioned strategy, which aims to end fuel poverty within 15 years. Until very recently, the Government were in agreement with the scope of the Act. In April 2000 the Minister stated:

''This Government are committed to tackling fuel poverty, particularly among those households most at risk to ill health due to cold homes; the old, children, the disabled and the chronically sick. The two main causes of fuel poverty are low income and poor energy efficiency in the home.''—[Official Report, 6 April 2000; Vol. 347, c. 548W.]

In February 2001, the Government launched a 10-year plan costing £1.5 billion a year that was designed to ensure that pensioners and other vulnerable people in England did not die of cold in their homes, reiterating their intention to eliminate all such deaths by 2010. Using statistics that showed that up to 50,000 elderly people may be dying in Britain every winter from cold, the Minister dramatically confirmed that the Government were declaring war on fuel poverty. As recently as December 2001, the Minister stated that the Bill would be helpful in further integrating local authorities' activities on fuel poverty and energy efficiency. However, the Government seem now to have decided on a more lackadaisical approach to the eradication of fuel poverty. Amendment No. 36 seeks to omit entirely the fuel poverty section of the Bill.

In the pre-Budget report 2001, commenting on winter fuel payments available for pensioners, the Government stated that

''the winter fuel payment currently benefits around 8 million households with someone aged 60 or over each winter. The Government has already announced that the winter fuel payment for this year will be set at £200. To ensure that these households continue to receive help, the winter fuel payment will be maintained at £200 for the remainder of this Parliament. This will provide extra reassurance and security for all pensioners over the coming years.''

Despite the Government's winter fuel payment strategy, last winter 22,700 older people in England and Wales died from cold-related causes. Commenting on that statistic, Mervyn Kohler of Help the Aged said:

''This 'bulge' of winter deaths is a peculiarly British problem. When countries with much more severe winters than ours have much lower winter death rates, it becomes obvious that something is badly wrong. And behind these stark figures there must be an uncountable cost of extra illness, discomfort and sheer misery for our older population.''

Fuel poverty is defined as the need for people to spend more than 10 per cent. of their household income on fuel to keep warm. Help the Aged affirms that the Government's strategy falls short on systematically attacking the problem of sub-standard housing and sub-standard heating facilities. The Government's winter fuel payment policy costs several times more than the amount earmarked for housing and heating improvements. While the winter fuel payment scheme has made an appreciable difference to many older people 's lives, it is wasted if it goes up the chimney or through the roof.

On the announcement of a fuel poverty strategy, the Minister admitted that the targets were ''challenging'', and continued to herald it as an important element of the Government's programme to tackle poverty and social exclusion. The provisions of the Bill would allow that challenge to be met. The Government's insistence on dropping the fuel poverty section of the Bill is inexplicable, especially in light of the Minister's argument in letters to the hon. Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and Ipswich, North (Sir Michael Lord), on 14 December 2001 that

''the Bill would help further integrate local authorities' activities on fuel poverty and energy efficiency. This would be helpful.''

The Minister now appears to believe that including fuel poverty in the Bill is unnecessary and can be dealt with under the existing powers of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, known as HECA. That is not only inconsistent with his earlier position, but incorrect. It has been suggested that provision in the Bill is unnecessary because such guidance can already be given under HECA and may imply that the guidance cannot be implemented under HECA, thereby adversely affecting the power to give guidance in Scotland, where the Bill does not apply. However, the advice of two lawyers with experience in judicial review and administrative law is that that is plain wrong. Indeed, that is clearly demonstrated by section 4(1) of HECA. Under HECA, guidance can be given, but only about what should be included in reports. Section 4(1) reads:

''The Secretary of State may, from time to time, give to energy conservation authorities such guidance as he considers appropriate

in relation to the preparation of reports under section 2 or reports under section 3(2)(a).''

In other words, the guidance powers under HECA are confined to HECA reports, and do not extend to guidance about implementation or mechanisms or co-ordinated action on fuel poverty, which is covered by new clause 8. Indeed, the Government's fuel poverty strategy points out in paragraph 3.13 that local authorities

''have a role in tackling fuel Poverty'',

but it also points out in paragraph 3.14 that currently local authorities' HECA activity

''will not always be targeted only at the fuel poor.''

What new clause 8 does is simple: it requires that HECA activity,

''as far as is reasonably practicable'',

complements the Government's fuel poverty activities. I believe that that is worth while. The current fuel poverty strategy has little about local authorities' role in the important matter of ending fuel poverty. True, there is the beacon council approach regarding best practice, but we want to ensure that all authorities, not just the best, act to eradicate fuel poverty. Local authorities need pushing to do what is right. The Government issued guidance in the year 2000 asking local authorities to report on fuel poverty activity under HECA. By the middle of last year, only 40 authorities had done so.

Many local authorities want these provisions in the Bill. They support the Bill, which includes the fuel poverty clause. A letter from Oldham council on 13 September 2001 stated:

''Many families and individuals in this Borough suffer the effects of poverty e.g. poor housing and health. Therefore Oldham strongly supports any measures which will help alleviate poverty and deprivation.''

So why remove references to fuel poverty? On 1 November 2001, Oxford council said:

''This Bill would help Oxford City fight fuel poverty, improve home energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.''

Again, the importance of fuel poverty is stressed. A letter from Dover district council on 6 November 2001 stated:

''The Bill reinstates the 30 per cent. energy improvement target and provides for full co-ordination between local and central government . . . we strongly ask for your support to ensure that this Bill becomes law.''

We should note the phrase

''provides for full co-ordination between local and central Government''.

That is what new clause 8 requires.

Manchester city council wrote on 6 November 2001:

''The Bill would certainly be of benefit to the City Council . . . in reducing C02 and ending fuel poverty.''

So why delete references to fuel poverty? A Hackney council resolution of 14 November 2001 stated:

''Many people in Hackney suffer from fuel poverty with the elderly and young especially badly affected . . . the implementation of this Bill will improve their quality of life.''

Again, the need to ensure co-ordinated action on fuel poverty is emphasised. That is exactly what this part of

the Bill is about. I could quote from East Lindsey, Havant, Shrewsbury and Atcham, Sunderland and many other councils, which strongly support the Bill, particularly part 2. The Committee should take those remarks as read.

Not much more needs to be said in defence of the inclusion in the Bill of provisions relating to fuel poverty. It is extremely important that the Bill contains those provisions and I hope that the Committee will support their inclusion.

I should like to cover one other area under this part of the Bill. For some reason the Government have decided that registered social landlords should not be included in the provisions of the Bill that concern fuel poverty. That is wrong. As I will point out later, when we debate part 3, registered social landlords should be subject to the same standards and targets as any other home owner, and I urge the Government to include them in the provisions of part 2.

I am left in something of a quandary. I do not understand the Minister's volte-face. As I have shown, it cannot be because the section is unnecessary and such guidance can already be given under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. It cannot be because to include provisions for such guidance in the Bill might imply that it cannot be done under HECA, and would thereby adversely affect the power to give guidance in Scotland, where the current Bill does not apply. I have dealt with that. It can only be that the Minister has been poorly advised. One should not be surprised, considering that his Department presided over flooding, fridges and foot and mouth, but I am. I believe that the Committee will show that we are disappointed in the Minister and require the Government to reconsider. It is for us on this Committee to put the matter right and to include in the Bill measures to eliminate fuel poverty.

Alan Simpson (Labour, Nottingham South)

I shall be relatively brief. Many of the views expressed by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) will be shared by both sides of the House and by all members of the Committee. I want to put this in a slightly different context. I am loth to blame the Minister for our predicament although we could have done without the confusion about the Committee's sittings, especially the Minister, whose time is probably under greater pressure. Our predicament does not reflect a lackadaisical approach by the Government to the commitment to eliminate fuel poverty. The Minister has probably done more than anyone to ensure that fuel poverty is on not just the political but the legislative agenda of this Parliament.

The issue of definitions to which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire referred is important. It is also contentious. I have sheltered behind the Minister at several conferences where the passionate views about the importance of getting the definition right come over with a degree of enthusiasm that is not far short of vehemence. I am pleased that the Minister, and not I, has to take that flak. The Minister more than anyone is aware of how important it is that we get the issue of fuel poverty right.

I suspect that the problems that we faced as a Committee result partly from confusion about whether clause 4 or new clause 8 is a duplication of what we can already do. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire was right to spell out in detail why that presumption was based on a misreading of the provision under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. I was involved in taking that legislation through the House and the powers that were given to Parliament under that Act were about the production of reports, not the delivery of a strategy to eliminate fuel poverty, which is the object of the Bill.

The Government have already made a commitment to eliminate fuel poverty within 15 years, which is why the words originally used by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown sought to spell out the connection with fuel poverty in the Bill and why, in perhaps more eloquent terms, they are also included in new clause 8. I am not particularly precious about which of those alternatives should be used, but I endorse the point that it is essential for the credibility and parity of the Bill that we do not leave out references to fuel poverty. It is not an optional add-on or cake decoration, but central to one of the most important policy commitments made by the Government, which as yet awaits clarification not about their determination to achieve it, but about the mechanisms that they will use to achieve it. That is why it is important that, in one way or another, the Committee ensures that a clear reference to the elimination of fuel poverty is contained in the principal terms of the Bill.

Vincent Cable (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

I add my support and that of my colleagues to the comments of the hon. Members for Mid-Bedfordshire and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson). They have covered much of the ground and we do not need long speeches on fuel poverty, so I shall simply make a few remarks.

As the hon. Member for Nottingham, South stressed, we are debating a procedural problem and trying to find the best way of pushing forward the issue. There seems to be strong support from action groups, charities and local authorities in favour of the approach of incorporating, either in clause 4 or new clause 8, specific and strong powers on fuel poverty. I support that strongly.

On the broader issue, I simply make the point that it is easy to be complacent about fuel poverty. I believe that it is under control and that we are making good progress. However, I emphasise that the most recent studies that I have seen that compare British performance with that of the rest of Europe show that we are far behind countries such as the Netherlands and Germany on tackling fuel poverty. We stand as one of the weakest countries in Europe, alongside Ireland, so there must be constant pressure for action.

One reason why local authorities are so keen to have enhanced powers is that they are dealing with generations of neglect. Since building regulations were first introduced in the 1860s, the emphasis has been on

sanitation and damp for generation after generation. It was only recently that warmth became a central issue, so we have a large backlog of houses, many of which were put up hurriedly in the 1950s and 1960s because of the pressure of demand, and local authorities are now struggling with them. We need a sense of urgency to tackle the problem with the physical stock.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown made the point in his introduction that the new clause would not impose costs on Government or compliance costs on other authorities. We must bear in mind that as long as fuel poverty is neglected, there are costs to society. The national health service suffers costs, as do social landlords, who constantly have to deal with the problem of people seeking transfers. There is a cost issue, but it weighs in favour of strong action and legislation.

I simply reiterate the point that has already been made. I have looked through HECA and the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 and, as far as I can see, nothing in those two pieces of legislation gives powers of guidance or co-ordination. That is what we want, not the old process of issuing reports. Clause 4 and new clause 8 give those powers, which is why there is support for them on both sides of the House. If the legislation is to have real meat and teeth, one or the other must be included.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I apologise for being a few minutes late. I was unavoidably detained. I missed what my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown said, although I can probably imagine what that was.

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

No, I did not say that.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I shall read with interest in the printed version what my hon. Friend said.

I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South, and to the hon. Members for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and for Mid-Bedfordshire. I wish that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire had not stumbled over himself repeatedly by making narrow political points. However, I accept the key point made by hon. Members that there is a general wish that the Bill should refer to the eradication of fuel poverty. I am sympathetic to that wish, and I believe that we can find a way to fulfil it.

The aim of clause 4 is to give the Secretary of State powers to direct energy conservation authorities on discharging their functions under the 1995 Act to help to implement the Government's fuel poverty strategy. Section 4 of the Act already confers on the Secretary of State the power to issue guidance on the preparation of energy conservation reports. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said that it did not refer specifically to the eradication of fuel poverty. That is true, but the reports are drawn up in accordance with the Secretary of State's guidance, and there is no reason why they should not contribute to eradicating fuel poverty.

Amendment No. 36 proposes that clause 4 should be removed, as it is unnecessary. My amendment No. 31 makes it clear that the Secretary of State's powers should be extended so that she may give guidance on implementation of the measures in the report. We

expect the implementation of those measures to benefit the fuel poor. The fuel poverty strategy will therefore be a relevant consideration when the Secretary of State decides the appropriate guidance to energy conservation authorities. The amendment should not be interpreted as the Government backing away from their commitment to tackle fuel poverty.

I will not rise to the bait when the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire talks about a volte-face. The only volte-face performed in the Committee is the hon. Gentleman's suddenly having an expedient interest in the eradication of fuel poverty. That interest was not reflected in the actions of the Conservative Government during their 18 years of office. The hon. Gentleman should not lead with a glass chin. As I said several times, fuel poverty tripled under that Government, and I will not take any lessons from him. As they say in another book, however, there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over 99 just men. It is excellent if the hon. Gentleman has joined us in our concern for fuel poverty.

I have not committed any volte-face. I am grateful for the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South, and I hope that what he said is true. I have done what I believe is necessary to make it true. We are deeply committed to seeking an end to fuel poverty, and I do not see how anyone could seriously deny that. Our fuel poverty strategy was published in November 2001, and we set a target to deal with most fuel-poor households, which include those of pensioners, the disabled, the chronically sick, and families on low incomes with children. One of the most effective ways of achieving that target is to improve the energy efficiency of homes. It is true that the Chancellor has made a welcome increase in fuel payments at Christmas. However, we do not want to assist the fuel poor to pay their bills when they are in badly insulated homes where most of the energy is wasted through the roof, doors or windows. We want, through energy efficiency, to reduce their fuel use while increasing the money that they have for fuel.

To help achieve that target we have established several domestic energy efficiency programmes. We have redesigned and increased the amount of money available under the old home energy efficiency scheme, a good scheme that we inherited from the previous Government. We have raised the limit for an individual household from £300 to £2,000. The new programme, which is marketed as warm front, provides considerably bigger grants for packages of insulation and heating improvements, including the installation of central heating, to those most vulnerable to cold-related ill health in the private sector. We have committed more than £600 million by 2004 to warm front. In addition, under the new energy efficiency commitment, which comes into effect in April, we have set a testing target for electricity and gas suppliers to achieve improvements in domestic energy efficiency; 50 per cent. of those energy savings must be directed at low-income consumers.

With that record, no objective person can say that our commitment is lackadaisical. It is the reverse of that. We are the first Government to put in place a target to end fuel poverty. As my hon. Friend the

Member for Nottingham, South said, we want to achieve that by 2016, and to put our money where our mouth is in supporting those major schemes.

I am happy with the new clause, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown. It takes account of my concern that the existing clause 4 was over-prescriptive and it meets other requirements in that it does not repeat existing legislation. I can therefore embrace it in policy terms. My problem, which is one that all Governments must concern themselves with, is that any clauses that go into statute must be acceptable to parliamentary draftsmen. Unfortunately, the new clause was tabled rather late in the day—I make no criticism of that—and the response that I received from the parliamentary draftsmen on the new clause came just before the start of the Committee. Their opinion is that there are unresolved problems with the new clause, in terms not of policy but simply of terminology. Most of those problems are technical and I hope and believe that they can be readily addressed. One problem that they identify is that it imposes a statutory duty on authorities, which they say is unacceptably vague. It requires authorities to exercise their functions in ways that would ''complement and support'' the Government's fuel poverty strategy. Parliamentary counsel asks what that would mean in practice. The phraseology is not as clear as it needs to be. If we give people statutory duties, they have to know without dubiety what they are expected to do.

I apologise to members of the Committee that I have unfortunately not had the time to discuss the amendment and its full implications as I would have liked, with the promoter of the Bill and with parliamentary counsel. I was recently abroad on departmental business for a week and we then had the half-term break. I would like to do further work on the new clause and if, as I believe that we can, we find a satisfactory phraseology that builds the eradication of fuel poverty into the Bill—which I favour—I would ask my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown not to press his new clause. I will then withdraw my amendment, with the intention of tabling another new clause on Report that fully meets his policy requirements as well as those of the parliamentary counsel.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

The Minister said that he intended to introduce on Report a clause that seeks to build into the Bill the eradication of fuel poverty. Opposition members of the Committee take the Minister at his word. If that is his intention and if it achieves the aim of assisting the eradication of fuel poverty, we will accept his assurances. On that basis, I leave it to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown to decide whether to support clause 4.

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

I thank the Minister for his helpful response to new clause 8 and for his generosity in accepting its policy principles. I also thank him for his offer of mutual withdrawal—[Laughter.]—so that we may join together to press the parliamentary counsel to produce a new clause that will be even better than new clause 8. I remain convinced that new clause 8 is an advance on the present clause 4 because

it is much clearer. If parliamentary counsel can provide a means of injecting even greater clarity, I have no problem with that.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

If it does not sound too pompous, would it not be better constitutionally to leave clause 4 until the revised new clause 8 is introduced? Alternatively—and I am prepared to accept the Minister's view—could we not leave new clause 8, with all its faults, intact until the new proposals are drafted?

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

I thank the hon. Gentleman. That is precisely the import of what will happen. If the Minister's amendment and my new clause were withdrawn, clause 4 as drafted would stand. The attack on fuel poverty would therefore still be built into the Bill. I would expect the Committee to accept nothing less. I am happy to accept the Minister's assurances. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire for his generous attitude. I hope that we can retain the spirit of harmony that has pervaded the Committee throughout its proceedings. I accept my half of the mutual withdrawal.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. I make it clear that we are deciding whether clause 4 should stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Houses in multiple occupation

John Baron (Conservative, Billericay)

I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 3, leave out lines 14 to 37 and insert

'''house in multiple occupation'' means a house which is occupied by persons who do not form a single household.'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this we may discuss the following: Amendment No. 52, in page 3, line 14, leave out from 'house'' to end of line 25 and insert

'where its occupancy is or would be subject to more than one tenancy agreement whether written or verbal'.

Amendment No. 53, in page 3, line 37, at end add—

'(e) a building which has been converted into self-contained flats in accordance with Building Regulations;

(f) service tenancy agreements.'.

Clause stand part.

Government new clause 7—Meaning of ''house in multiple occupation''—

'(1) Section 345 of the Housing Act 1985 (meaning of ''multiple occupation'') is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2)(b), for ''by a single household'' there is substituted ''as a separate dwelling.

(3) After subsection (2) there is inserted—

''(3) The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing—

(a) circumstances in which a person is, or is not, to be regarded as occupying a house, or

(b) circumstances in which persons occupying a house are, or are not, to be regarded as forming a single household.

(4) Regulations under paragraph (b) of subsection (3) may (without prejudice to the generality of that paragraph) secure that persons occupying a house are regarded as forming a single

household only where there is a prescribed relationship between each member of the group and any one or more of the others (as the regulations may require).

(5) In subsection (4) ''prescribed relationship'' means any family or other relationship of a description specified in the regulations.

''(6) The Secretary of State may also make regulations prescribing descriptions of houses which (whether or not otherwise falling within the definition in subsection (1)) are not to be regarded as houses in multiple occupation within the meaning of this Part.

(7) Regulations under subsection (6) may frame a description of house by reference to any features of the house (including the nature of its use or occupation).

(8) Regulations under this section—

(a) may make different provision for different circumstances;

(b) may make incidental, supplementary and transitional provision; and

(c) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.''.'.

And the following amendments thereto:

(a), after proposed new subsection (3)(b) of section 345 of the Housing Act 1985 insert

'(3A) Regulations made under subsection (2) shall include in any definition of ''house in multiple occupation'' a house occupancy of which is or would be subject to more than one tenancy agreement whether written or verbal.'.

(b), in proposed new subsection (6) of section 345 of the Housing Act 1985, leave out from second 'of' to end and insert

'buildings which are, or are not, to be regarded as houses'.

(c), in proposed new subsection (7) of section 345 of the Housing Act 1985, leave out from first 'of' to '(including' and insert

'building by reference to any features of the building'.

Amendment No. 43, in title, before 'make' insert

'to amend the definition of house in multiple occupation in Part 11 of the Housing Act 1985;'.

John Baron (Conservative, Billericay)

I have tabled amendments because I am concerned that if the Bill's definition of a house in multiple occupation is allowed to stand, landlords will leave the sector, the sector will shrink and tenants, above all others, will be harmed.

I have tabled amendments Nos. 51 to 53 and amendment (a) to new clause 7. Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 should be viewed together. Ideally, the Committee will accept amendment No. 51, and I shall not have to press Nos. 52 and 53; if it does not, I shall have to press the others to a vote.

At this point, I should declare an interest, as I always do on such occasions. I am a landlord and own two and three-bedroom flats and five and six-bedroom houses.

As I mentioned when the Committee last met, one of my concerns about clause 5 is that we may introduce too much red tape and too many costs—I am not talking only about licensing and registration fees. The private rented sector might then shrink, which would harm tenants. Now that we can table amendments that stand a chance of being discussed, I should say that the Bill's definition of an HMO is central to my concern.

I am aware that the Government have tabled new clause 7, and I shall include one or two references to it.

Before we get to it, however, I shall concentrate on the Bill as it stands. The Bill proposes to change the definition of an HMO from

''a house which is occupied by persons who do not form a single household''

to

''a house occupied by adult members of more than two families.''

New clause 7 raises the possibility of keeping single households within the definition of an HMO, but only where there is a prescribed relationship between each member of the group.

Whether intentionally or not, the Government have introduced a fundamental change, because the new definition will include landlords who let to house or flat sharers. As the law stands, three young professionals or students who reside in a three-bedroom flat and who have signed an assured shorthold tenancy—tenants and landlords freely enter into such agreements, which typically also involve a managing agent—would not be considered as an HMO. If the definition in the Bill is allowed to stand, such a property would not only be considered as an HMO, but could be liable to registration or licensing, depending on the local authority's attitude. We must recognise that that change would affect a huge proportion of properties in the private rented market, which have hitherto escaped registration or licensing schemes because they are not defined as HMOs. Until now, flat and house sharers have been seen as a single household.

The Bill is aimed at bedsit-type accommodation, and we are all in favour of eradicating slum landlords who provide substandard accommodation and take advantage of their tenants. If the definition is allowed to stand, the Bill will cast its net far too wide and will cause a shrinkage in the sector, as happened in Scotland.

The new definition would cover a group of friends, for example students, who sign an assured shorthold tenancy, and who are, therefore, jointly and severally liable. In that situation, there is one agreement and a sense of community. There is no sense of community in bedsit accommodation with slum landlords, where there is a lock on each bedroom and the tenants operate independently. The slum landlord has more opportunity to take advantage of the situation, and I wholeheartedly agree that we should address that problem. However, local authorities have the power to intervene in such situations because the machinery to confront slum landlords already exists. For example, closure notices can be issued by local authorities to deal with overcrowding. Local authorities can also issue section 352 notices to ensure that certain works are implemented on a property, often within 21 days, so one does not have to wait long for improvements to take place.

Changing the definition of an HMO is like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is entirely unnecessary and will harm tenants because it will restrict the supply of accommodation and restrict choice. If we over-regulate, initiative and enterprise will stand less chance of success, which would be a shame for the private

rented sector. A little history may be helpful in this context.

The Housing Act 1988 introduced assured shorthold tenancies. That removed the restrictions placed on the market by the earlier rent Acts, which gave tenants security of tenure and left landlords unable to obtain vacant possession. In effect, the Housing Act 1988, reinforced by the Housing Act 1996, freed up the rental market. It is, therefore, no surprise that, according to the figures of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the private rented sector declined to a low point in 1989, with about 1.7 million tenancies in existence. In the year 1999–2000, it increased to 2.3 million tenancies as a result of the liberalisation of the market. That is evidenced by the fact that, again according to figures from the DTLR, between 1999 and 2000, the number of assured shorthold tenancies increased from approximately 500,000 to 1.5 million, while the number of regulated tenancies decreased from 600,000 to 200,000.

There can be little doubt from those figures that the Housing Acts of 1988 and 1996 revived the sector, but Britain still has a far smaller rented sector than many other European countries. A healthy rented sector is vital to the national economy as it assists mobility in the workplace. With modern labour practices, the days of a job for life are behind us and the labour force will have to be much more mobile. Therefore, mobility of labour is extremely important.

A healthy private sector market is also in the nation's best interest because it helps education. The sector provides much-needed accommodation for students. That will increasingly be the case if the Government are to meet their education targets, especially the measures that they are introducing on further education. However, we are contemplating a Bill that, by changing the definition of an HMO, will threaten the sector to an extent and make for its contraction.

We must remember that the sector comprises mostly small operators who could readily invest elsewhere. For example, they could invest in commercial property. Many people think that there are massive profits to be made or massive profit margins in the private rented sector, but that is not the case. If there were, there would be far more corporate investors. The sector typically comprises people who invest in one or two properties at most to supplement their income, often for retirement.

There is a danger that a good number of those people will leave the market because of wholesale licensing schemes that could be enforced by local authorities. Meanwhile, the small minority of people who disregard the law—we all want to get rid of them—will continue to do so anyway. Our job is to make life as difficult for them as possible, without harming the vast majority who are perfectly reasonable landlords.

We need only consider the chaos in Scotland to see what can happen. Mandatory licensing for HMOs was introduced on 1 October 2000. The relevant legislation allowed great variation between local authorities in

terms of fees set and the requirements that those authorities sought. We all know that vastly different fees were charged as a consequence. I am conscious that new clause 7 would limit the fees to £112 per letting, so that issue is covered to an extent. However, local authorities have also placed a wide variety of requirements on HMO landlords.

UNITE, which specialises in providing student accommodation, has supplied figures about a case in Glasgow in which bills over and above registration fees amounted to £10,000. That involved simply making an application in respect of HMOs. In the end, such fees will be passed on to tenants. As a result of legislation, there has been a noticeable reduction in the availability of properties, especially at the lower end of the market, and that affects students. I ask the Committee seriously to consider that. We do not want the Bill to affect the availability of such accommodation.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

My hon. Friend is on the subject of student accommodation and UNITE. Has he read the student living report published by UNITE, which described a level of student accommodation of which many students, including me when I was one, could only dream? Does he agree that policy should be directed towards encouraging such companies, which provide high quality accommodation at affordable prices, rather than reducing supply?

John Baron (Conservative, Billericay)

Yes, I have seen that report. It reinforces the point that we have to allow operators as much freedom as possible, especially in terms of the provision of student accommodation. We must not tie them up in red tape and costs, as we must ensure a decent supply of student accommodation. That has not been the case in the Scottish experience and tenants, especially students, have been made to suffer.

It may be anathema to some Labour Members, but I believe that if we care about driving up standards, the best way to do so is to encourage healthy competition. The more choice tenants have, the more they will gravitate to better accommodation and the more landlords will be prepared to invest. Landlords will not invest if there is too much interference from local authorities as a result of widespread registration; they will simply invest in other forms of property—commercial property, for example—or leave the market altogether. Meanwhile, those landlords who do remain will simply pass on registration costs to tenants, who will have little choice but to pay as a diminishing amount of accommodation will be available to them. In the end, it is the tenants who will suffer. The landlords have a choice as they can leave the market, but tenants need accommodation.

I shall make three or four more points about widening the definition of HMOs, the first of which relates to planning. The extension of the definition of HMOs to include properties with more than two families could sweep into the definition nearly all shared houses. Such a definition would result in recategorisation for planning purposes. If a property is categorised for planning purposes as an HMO, there

is no assurance that the planning authority in question will give the landlord the ability to recategorise for single occupancy when the property is sold.

In several incidents recently, local authorities have tried to restrict the power and use it to the detriment of the local housing market. For example, in Hammersmith and Fulham and in Camden, reports state that local authorities, worried about the availability of—

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks are leading towards amendments Nos. 45 and 46, which will be discussed later. I ask him to return to the amendment.

John Baron (Conservative, Billericay)

Thank you, Mr. Benton. I shall do so.

Hon. Members have all spoken in favour of the purpose of the Bill, which is ostensibly to encourage energy conservation, and includes targets to ensure that that is achieved. However, I question whether part 3, and the licensing of HMOs, will make a significant contribution to achieving that goal. HMOs represent about 40 per cent. of the total private rented sector and within HMOs, 25 per cent. represent shared housing. It must be assumed that local authorities are aware of the location of those HMOs. Therefore, only a proportion of them will not meet the energy-saving targets in full. Although the proposal may be of some help, it is superfluous to achieving the aim of parts 1 and 2: the eradication of fuel poverty. It is not quite an afterthought but it is not essential to the success of the Bill, and I ask the Committee to think about it.

I am worried about the definition of an HMO in clause 5, although I am conscious that new clause 7 brings in a modified definition. What is a family, nowadays? What will be prescribed relationships? A family is not an easy concept to define and the courts will be kept busy determining the definition. For example, could a family include non-marital relationships? Could it include homosexual relationships, or monogamous relationships for both heterosexual and homosexual groups? Are prescribed relationships to be based on friendship or on sexual relationships? Those questions must be asked or there will be confusion in the implementation of the Bill, which we are keen to support. Part 3 threatens the clarification of what is applicable.

We should examine local authorities' records. We are enabling them to have a much greater say in the running of HMOs, particularly from an energy and fuel point of view, but greater involvement in the sector is not necessarily a good thing. Indeed, local authorities' record of managing residential properties varies from area to area, and some can be very bad. Without wishing to name examples—although I have them here, if any hon. Member is interested to find out after Committee—more than half of council homes fail to meet government standards in some local authority areas. In some instances, as many as 5,000 homes are described as unfit for human habitation. If those homes were in the private sector they would be closed down, and yet we are asking those authorities to start ruling on the condition of HMOs, which will leave room for all sorts of discrepancies. The latest results from the Government's survey of English housing

show that the highest levels of customer satisfaction are among, believe it or not, private tenants. The report by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions indicates that nearly twice the proportion of council tenants say that they are dissatisfied with their landlords than those in the private sector—about 20 per cent. compared with roughly 10 per cent.

In moving the amendment, I am suggesting that we revert to the old definition, which has broadly worked, and allow the courts to decide whether there is a discrepancy in determining what is an HMO. We should allow the sector to expand as it has done in recent years, as it helps the economy and government policies on education and, above all, gives tenants greater choice. We have seen what can happen when a market shrinks because of over-regulation, as happened recently in Scotland, or planning issues, as we have seen in Hammersmith and Fulham, where the number of HMOs has declined markedly. There are difficulties with the proposed new definition of an HMO in both new clause 7 and the Bill. How does one define a family or a prescribed relationship? Although local authority involvement in the private rented sector may be good in some cases, it is not necessarily so and could cause a great deal of irritation to many landlords for no good reason.

Finally, as I have said on many occasions, I wholeheartedly support parts 1 and 2 in trying to eradicate fuel poverty. However, part 3 is largely superfluous to that aim. If we want to drive up standards in the private rented sector, healthy competition should have a major part to play. Part 3 would negate healthy competition, and on that basis I commend the amendment to the Committee.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

I shall raise mainly technical questions for the Minister, but I must respond to the comments of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron), which I generally support. He has probably had some of the same briefings as me. My starting point is the misconception that, with HMOs, we are always talking about older properties that are in need of repair, which is why energy conservation and the need to address fuel poverty are so important.

New and corporate landlords—UNITE is an obvious example—are entering the area of accommodation for students and people who work in the national health service. I am sure that we can all think of new blocks being built in our own areas that will take care of people on a multiple-occupancy basis, but which take anything but the usual form of such units of accommodation.

There is a difficulty inasmuch as clauses 5 and 6 run together, and we cannot sort out a definition of houses in multiple occupation without talking about registration and the fees that will be charged. However, I will restrict my remarks to clause 5. My right hon. Friend the Minister will move new clause 7, which I hope will clarify some of the issues. There are

good ideas in clauses 5 and 6, and I hope that if I ask some technical questions, the Minister can help me through this. They are mainly about what is currently in the Bill. I am a little confused about whether we will deal with self-contained flats through the new clause, and if so where they stand with the definition of HMOs.

Much of the accommodation to which I am referring and the hon. Member for Billericay had recourse to consider is university halls of residence and accommodation for health service employees. Where do they stand with regard to the new clause? That matters because the definition of HMOs will have a significant impact on the registration of such buildings and units within buildings and, more particularly, the fee structure that will apply.

I agree that there are problems, and there are precedents on which we can call. Scotland provides the obvious one. There seems to be a differential between what different local authorities in Scotland have done on charging fees. I am aware that that relates to clause 6, but the definition is so important that if we can get it right, we can perhaps help to ensure that the registration process and the fee that follows are also correct.

The final issue is how we treat the different elements of these newer units of accommodation. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend would clarify whether private sector operators who work in partnership with public sector institutions will be treated in the same way. If a private operator provides accommodation on behalf of a university, there should be parity in the treatment of the registration and the fee structure that applies. It would be unfair if the university charged one fee for its own accommodation, but the private deliverer of similar accommodation had a different fee structure.

The main point is that we must get this legislation right. It is about encouraging new people into the sector as well as dealing with what already exists. Although in certain respects I disagree with the hon. Member for Billericay, the measure is important. HMOs are an important part of the way in which we consider fuel poverty and its eradication.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay, although not because amendments Nos. 45 and 46, which we shall reach later, stand in my name. In light of the earlier exchange between the Minister and the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, however, I am tempted to say, ''I'll support yours if you support mine.'' I offer support because I agree with much of what my hon. Friend said about the existing position and defining a single household. That has probably been made over-complex. Indeed, if we consider the new clause—

It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o'clock.

Standing Committee C

Clause 5 - Houses in multiple occupation

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

I remind the Committee that with this we may discuss the following: Amendment No. 52, in page 3, line 14, leave out from 'house'' to end of line 25 and insert

'where its occupancy is or would be subject to more than one tenancy agreement whether written or verbal'.

Amendment No. 53, in page 3, line 37, at end add—

'(e) a building which has been converted into self-contained flats in accordance with Building Regulations;

(f) service tenancy agreements.'.

Clause stand part.

Government new clause 7—Meaning of ''house in multiple occupation''—

'(1) Section 345 of the Housing Act 1985 (meaning of ''multiple occupation'') is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2)(b), for ''by a single household'' there is substituted ''as a separate dwelling.

(3) After subsection (2) there is inserted—

''(3) The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing—

(a) circumstances in which a person is, or is not, to be regarded as occupying a house, or

(b) circumstances in which persons occupying a house are, or are not, to be regarded as forming a single household.

(4) Regulations under paragraph (b) of subsection (3) may (without prejudice to the generality of that paragraph) secure that persons occupying a house are regarded as forming a single household only where there is a prescribed relationship between each member of the group and any one or more of the others (as the regulations may require).

(5) In subsection (4) ''prescribed relationship'' means any family or other relationship of a description specified in the regulations.

''(6) The Secretary of State may also make regulations prescribing descriptions of houses which (whether or not otherwise falling within the definition in subsection (1)) are not to be regarded as houses in multiple occupation within the meaning of this Part.

(7) Regulations under subsection (6) may frame a description of house by reference to any features of the house (including the nature of its use or occupation).

(8) Regulations under this section—

(a) may make different provision for different circumstances;

(b) may make incidental, supplementary and transitional provision; and

(c) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.''.'.

And the following amendments thereto:

(a), after proposed new subsection (3)(b) of section 345 of the Housing Act 1985 insert

'(3A) Regulations made under subsection (2) shall include in any definition of ''house in multiple occupation'' a house occupancy of which is or would be subject to more than one tenancy agreement whether written or verbal.'.

(b), in proposed new subsection (6) of section 345 of the Housing Act 1985, leave out from second 'of' to end and insert

'buildings which are, or are not, to be regarded as houses'.

(c), in proposed new subsection (7) of section 345 of the Housing Act 1985, leave out from first 'of' to '(including' and insert

'building by reference to any features of the building'.

Amendment No. 43, in title, before the second 'make' insert

'to amend the definition of house in multiple occupation in Part 11 of the Housing Act 1985;'.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

I was in full flood before lunch—lunch with the chairman of the BBC, which was a most welcome break from our proceedings—explaining why the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) was so splendid, why I supported it and why the rest of the Committee should do likewise. My hon. Friend made several important points about the nature of the private rental sector, what may happen under the Bill and what could happen under Government new clause 7.

I have some worries about part 3, as drafted. It states that a house in multiple occupation

''means subject to subsection (2) below a house occupied by adult members of more than two families.''

Presumably, if a house were occupied by only two families, it would not be an HMO. I can imagine circumstances in which a house that was occupied merely by two families ought to be classified as an HMO, as I can imagine circumstances in which a house occupied by two families should not be so classified. Such a definition is a strange basis on which to proceed.

I greeted new clause 7 with some surprise. The Minister has had today's sitting in his diary for a considerable time, but he was unable to attend this morning because of an engagement. The new clause states:

''The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing—

(a) circumstances in which a person is, or is not, to be regarded as occupying a house, or

(b) circumstances in which persons occupying a house are, or are not, to be regarded as forming a single household.''

The Minister's pressing diary engagement is evidence that Ministers do not have enough time as it is, without their having to consider whether someone who occupies a house forms or does not form a single household and when someone is, or is not, deemed to be occupying a house. They have better things to do than that. I therefore commend the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay, which would revert the clause to the original position that a house in multiple occupation

''means a house which is occupied by persons who do not form a single household.'

That is a clear definition and one under which disputes can be solved, not by far too busy Ministers, but by the courts as has hitherto been the case.

I have received a letter from a constituent, Mr. C. Binks, from Pulham Property Company Ltd. in Pulham Market. Those members of the Committee who knew my predecessor will know that Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market took his title from that splendid village in the heart of the constituency. Mr. Binks writes:

''We let mainly to students in Norwich, and work very closely through our agent with the students union.''

He believes that he does not need interference from the council to spoil the confidence that he has built up with his clients over many years. He objects to the permission that he would have to obtain under the Bill to sell a company property if it became unsuitable, and I shall expand on that later when we debate amendments Nos. 45 and 46, which I have tabled.

Mr. George Haines, Mr. Binks's colleague, explained the position to me as it obtains in Norwich where, in the golden triangle, is desirable terraced housing near the university of East Anglia in which some young professionals live, but which is also much liked by students. Typically, there are lets in houses of either four or five students living together, with shared lavatories, shared bathrooms and shared kitchens with one communal room, and one bedroom each. We would usually describe such conditions as a house share or a flat share. When I was a student, I lived in similar accommodation. We would not have regarded such accommodation as anything other than a single household. It would not have been right for it to have been included under the ambit of the Bill.

The problem, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay alluded, is that if the Bill were passed in such a form that such properties were caught, the effect would be simple. According to Mr. George Haines,

''We would no longer be in charge of our own properties''.

People would move towards ordinary family letting, and the supply of rental property available to students would be reduced. He said that, although the income received would be lower, his company feels so strongly about the matter that it would do that. They are reputable landlords who work hard to form close relationships with their clients, build relationships with student unions, understand what their clients want and provide a good service at a reasonable price.

I understand that the purpose of the Bill is to catch the small proportion of landlords who are not doing the right thing. I do not believe that the definition of HMO as proposed either in the original Bill or in new clause 7 is the right approach. Instead, I feel strongly that the best approach in defining HMOs is to revert to the former definition as contained in amendment No. 51, and it is in that light that I support the amendment.

Harold Best (Labour, Leeds North West)

I listened with great interest to the observations of previous

speakers. I found the remarks of the hon. Member for Billericay fascinating. They were a delightful mixture of straightforward honesty, on which he should be congratulated, and observations, laden with a call for the status quo, which we hope to change. I should like to comment on some of those interesting observations.

The hon. Member for Billericay referred to the number of people who own dwellings that may or may not be defined as HMOs by whatever means we finally determine and how they tend to be held in the possession of one or more members of a family, especially in the case of one property, and suggested that corporate interests are rarely involved. I think that I understand the difference between a corporate interest and the interests of someone who may have five, 10, 20, 30, 50, 200 or 300 houses and own them individually. We have that in Leeds, and problems flow from that.

On either side of my house are HMOs that have been newly developed in the past few years. I can look from my landing window through the opposite landing window and see the locks and bars on the doors of the bedrooms opposite. I can look straight through, as there are no curtains. That is one of the effects of a plague of houses in multiple occupation—the standard of appearance of the housing stock quickly degrades.

The nature of such ownership is causing most of the problems. Great sums are made from such properties. I was fascinated to hear the suggestion that people may accept a lower income. That is not the information that I have from the owners of such properties. On the contrary, they look for every possible means to increase their income and are terrified of a definition of an HMO such as is contained in the Minister's new clause 7, as it would mean that they would have to register in a manner that might affect their profit-making capacities.

Houses in Headingley, where I and the great bulk of students at Leeds university live—there are some 60,000 students in total, from two universities and a large teacher training college—have had an enormous effect on the environment there. More than 50 per cent. of what was formerly traditional family housing stock has become HMOs. Hon. Members can imagine the catastrophic social and structural effects that that has had and how damaging that can be in relation to, for example, the number of schools in the area. A primary school was built 10 years ago that the demographics suggested would have a long and continuous future. A large sum of public money was invested in it, and yet it is struggling to survive. The reason for that is simple; the area has more houses in multiple occupation and fewer families. That means that there are fewer children, which leads to a greater threat to the community's infrastructure.

That process is being driven by the pursuit of profits. Vast sums of money are being made. The houses either side of me will generate income streams of about £15,000 to £20,000 a year if their owners are lucky—which they are. They have six, seven or eight bedrooms, and the numbers of tenants, and their safety, depends on the effectiveness of the local authority. We had a protracted battle with the house next door to mine. With the aid of the planning

department, after a long inquiry, we eventually reduced the number of its occupants from eight to six for their safety, and in accordance with the planning regulations. Those are the kinds of real problems that it seems that the hon. Member for Billericay would not want to do anything to address them.

John Baron (Conservative, Billericay)

The hon. Gentleman has, to put it mildly, misinterpreted my comments.

With regard to the composition of the private rented sector, the point that I made is that the vast majority of landlords are small landlords who own merely one or two properties. They are not quasi-corporate investors who own large swathes of property, or entire streets.

With regard to the licensing of HMOs in their present definition, my point is that councils and local authorities have plenty of opportunity to put right what is wrong with ''slum landlords''. The change of definition that is envisaged in the Bill as it stands, and in new clause 7, will encompass most, if not all, of the private rented sector. That will cause great inconvenience to landlords, and it will, perhaps, persuade them not to stay in the market, as has been the case in Scotland.

I am not against the licensing of HMOs in their present definition. On the contrary, I have a greater desire than most people to drive out slum landlords. However, the change in the definition of an HMO will suddenly bring into its ambit most of the private rented sector, and that would not be for the good of tenants.

Harold Best (Labour, Leeds North West)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and it causes me to reassert my observation that he seeks to maintain the status quo. I understand why he might want to do that, because he seems to have a close affinity with landlords.

I take on board the hon. Gentleman's point that there is a problem with regard to the accommodation of large numbers of students. I am pleased to say that Lord Falconer visited my constituency on Friday 15 February to examine the nature and effect of the degeneration that results from the kind of abusive use of traditional family housing stock that we are experiencing. He was surprised to see the detrimental effect that that had had on what was a highly desirable residential area, and how seriously damaging it is, because of the change of use. There is seasonal use of properties; it is like living in a seaside town. Local businesses benefit intermittently, depending on how many students are present at any given time. There is not a fixed number of people consistently living in the area. The student body is permanently changing at Leeds, as it is at other universities. At Leeds, one third of students roll over each year. Therefore, there is a constant change of tenancies inside buildings, which leads to degeneration of their interiors, and of the neighbourhood. That can also be extremely damaging to the health and safety of the tenants.

It is a measure of the desirability of these properties, and the profit margins that are available, that while the average price of properties in Leeds rose by 60 per cent. between 1995 and 2001—pretty much the average

across the United Kingdom—in Headingley it went up by 90 per cent. That shows the healthy profit margin made from the grotesque misuse of housing stock for traditional family use. However, it is not that which brings me to my feet as much as the threat to the safety of those who live in those circumstances. Opposition Members may not believe me when I say that from my house I can see the bolts on the doors in the house opposite. I am happy to show them from my window. It would be bad enough if that were a unique example, but we know that it is not. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) agrees that there are some problems with the issue, and I have heard him say so before. I have to acknowledge that there are some first-class landlords in the area. They are brilliant. They have been in the family business for years or decades. They know how to take care of properties, and they do not allow that kind of practice.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

Where there are separate dwellings, they will be classified as HMOs. It sounds to me as if the buildings that the hon. Gentleman describes would be classified as HMOs under the amendment. I shall give him two examples of the accommodation that I lived in when I was a student in London. The first was a house designed for traditional family dwelling. When one went through the front entrance, there were locked doors leading in different directions, to different dwellings. Some were small flats and some were bedsits. I should think that that would undoubtedly be categorised as an HMO under the amendment.

On another occasion I lived in a flat in which there was a communal living room, kitchen and bathroom but separate bedrooms, which did not have locks on the door. We were one household. Those types of dwellings and flats would not be classified as HMOs under the amendment or by the courts. My concern is that the second type would be classified as an HMO under new clause 7, and as a result, the total volume of the rental sector would decline. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a risk that the rental property sector could decline in volume? That would present a problem.

Harold Best (Labour, Leeds North West)

I shall make a quick observation on that point. It may well be—no one could be certain until it became a reality—that there would be some decline. If that were so and it improved the living conditions of some of those in difficult circumstances whom I see daily, it might not be a bad thing. It might also have the beneficial effect of inducing those who plan to increase the numbers of students at universities without any preparation or taking any responsibility for their accommodation, to rethink their policies.

Before anyone suggests that I oppose the expansion of higher education, I state that that is not true. I support expanding higher education in a way that is manageable and tolerable to existing communities—but that needs planning. The fact that we have pursued policies that deny the appropriate planning for that kind of housing change is a measure of our collective failure. I consider new clause 7 a step in the right direction. I have suggested to Lord Falconer, for example, that we should freeze the number of students at Leeds university at the 2001 level until we have an

appropriate mechanism that allows us to accommodate them in a safe and secure manner.

The hon. Member for Billericay spoke about returning to the previous position. He seems to believe that Barnes v. Sheffield was an unfortunate event, which might have been better dealt with in another way, but nevertheless represented the local position that we have learned to live with. Yes, it does. If I understand him correctly, he suggests that the lack of clarity in new clause 7 might lead us back to the courts. It might, yet clear intent has been expressed about definitions. The parliamentary process embraces clear intent, but the Barnes v. Sheffield scenario had much less clarity. The courts took that decision, which has hamstrung local authorities and good landlords, who are other victims of the process. I could tell the same horror stories about good landlords being victims of the system as about students being forced into such accommodation.

Attempts to change the status quo can be difficult when one has to legislate in a context where there are no precedents. It is difficult. I sympathise with the Opposition as well as the Minister. I understand the difficulties of changing the system when such complexities have evolved about the meaning and effects of property ownership up and down the chain. New clause 7 offers the hope of radical change—

John Baron (Conservative, Billericay)

The hon. Gentleman makes it sound as if the status quo is bad and we must advance from it, but I believe that the status quo should be changed only if there is a good reason. We have freed up the private rented sector, and far more houses are on the market and far more properties are available to rent. Local authorities have powers to intervene if necessary. One is not against the licensing of HMOs in their present definition and, broadly speaking, the system has worked.

May I take the hon. Gentleman back to his point about locks and bolts on doors? In that context and under the present definition of an HMO, to which it is proposed that we revert, that is an HMO.

Harold Best (Labour, Leeds North West)

Would the hon. Gentleman repeat that?

John Baron (Conservative, Billericay)

The hon. Gentleman referred to bedroom doors being bolted and people living separate lives. Under the present definition of an HMO—before the Bill and associated amendments came into being—such a dwelling would be regarded as an HMO. Accordingly, the local authority would have the right to enter and serve either section 352 or overcrowding notices to put the situation right if it were deemed necessary. The hon. Gentleman's point is not therefore valid in the context of the amendment, which is not helpful in clarifying the ambiguity of prescribed relationships for more than two families. At least some clarity emerges from court decisions, and people know where they stand. We will be inviting the courts to intervene again to interpret the definitions and throw the market—certainly in the short term—into a state of flux as to their meaning.

To return to my central point, one should move on from the status quo only if—

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. This intervention is becoming too long.

Harold Best (Labour, Leeds North West)

I see little point in rehearsing the arguments again. The hon. Gentleman holds one view and I hold another. One benefit that might accrue from market development is that properties previously occupied by family units of two, three or four could be occupied by five, six or eight students. I understand that argument. Any intrusion into the freedom to operate in that way will restrict the market.

There is another element of the market that must be borne in mind. I am surprised that landlords and others who support the free market do not talk about the devastating effect that such misuse of property has had on the first-time buyers market. The properties that I referred to are priced way out of the range of a first-time buyer. The asking price of my house, which I bought for £5,000 nearly 30 years ago in 1973, when I had a young family, is now £230,000. Which young family could get a mortgage on a house that cost nearly a quarter of million pounds? The first-time buyers market has been devastated.

There are other serious downside consequences for easily provided housing units for students. There has been an effect on the environment; large numbers of professional people who used to travel gently to work on public transport have been driven out of inner-city areas. We now have the second most polluted road in Leeds, according to the official roadside measuring device, with huge consequential damage to the environment. That is part of the price of the system, and I ask hon. Members to take it into consideration when making their case for a return to the status quo.

The state of security of the properties also says something about the status quo to which the hon. Member for Billericay wants to return. The local criminal fraternity see September and October, when most students are new to their properties, as heaven with its gates left open for them. The technique is simple: the burglar knocks on the door of a single housing unit, where everyone lives together, and says, ''I've come to see Darren.'' It is not complicated; the person who answers the door says, ''Do we have a Darren here? He may be on the third floor.'' The local villain goes upstairs with his plastic bag, knocking on every door he passes, and if there is no reply in he goes, taking the laptop computer and all the other bits and pieces.

We have the highest burglary rate anywhere in the United Kingdom, and the best season for burglaries is well understood. There are armed robberies on a scale that is difficult to imagine, because the targets are soft. That is the downside of the traditional solution recommended by the hon. Member for Billericay, and it is not the way forward for anyone who is concerned about housing for young people at university. Like Conservative Members, they too want security and decent standards of housing.

John Baron (Conservative, Billericay)

I do not follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument that changing the definition of HMOs will affect the housing market or crime figures. He seems to be blaming the HMOs and the restricted definition of them, and saying that they are responsible

for rising house prices and crime figures. Is that what he is suggesting?

Harold Best (Labour, Leeds North West)

It is an incredible coincidence if adjoining areas do not have the same crime rate and victim status. There has been an increase in the average price of properties in other parts of Leeds of about 60 per cent.; in Headingley prices have gone up by 90 per cent. in the last six or seven years. Those are not insignificant indicators of the availability of profits from the misuse of property to which the hon. Member for Billericay wants to return.

We want a change; we want proper use of property and safe accommodation for students, especially in my constituency, where—unlike other areas in which there are HMOs—there is an exceptionally high demand for properties. It is necessary to be able to deal with the special peculiarities of the property market, which the market cannot resolve on its own. What is proposed, especially in new clause 7, is an intelligent sensitive intervention in the marketplace, which would benefit all those who are currently using these properties.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) spoke about the effect of transient and termly residence in the area in which he lives. He spoke movingly, not just now but on Second Reading, about a populous family-oriented area that has become almost a dormitory town at some times of the year. I understand what he says, but I do not think that the Bill—part 3 in particular—is the proper way of dealing with that planning problem. The requirements for the licensing of HMOs should have a different effect—to provide quality, safe and properly insulated accommodation for people who hitherto have not had that degree of protection. It is not a panacea for a particular planning problem.

The Government have resolved to alter the provisions of the Bill that would license houses in multiple occupation. We know that they have failed to fulfil their promise in their manifestos both of 1997 and of 2001 that they

''will provide protection where most needed: for tenants in houses in multiple occupation. There will be a proper system of licensing by local authorities which will benefit tenants and responsible landlords alike.''

Despite the extensive consultations on the licensing of landlords in low-demand areas, the Government do not seem to have been in a great hurry to meet their pledge, especially considering that it was first made in 1997. The House, supported by the Conservative party, has established that the licensing of houses in multiple occupation is a worthy concept. However, my party has persistently and consistently reiterated our concerns about the detail of part of the Bill.

I have expressed my gratitude already to the Bill's promoter for his efforts to address various concerns of members of Her Majesty's Opposition, and I am pleased that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) has attempted to provide a maximum threshold for maximum registration fees and, in effect, to give an appeals procedure. The broad intention of part 3 is to increase the health and safety

standards of houses in multiple occupation. That is why, although I understand the problem and sympathise with the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West, this is not the Bill to deal with that problem.

We know that higher standards are necessary in HMOs. Some 10 per cent. of all HMOs—and 20 per cent. of flats and bedsits—fail standard tests, and 80 per cent. of HMOs lack fire escape facilities. As the House noted on Second Reading, for people who happen to live in an HMO of three storeys or higher, the danger of fire is 17 times greater. More than 1.5 million people live in HMOs in England alone, and Shelter has described their housing conditions as

''among the poorest and most dangerous in the country.''

The Government's document ''Fuel poverty: The New HEES'' highlights the health and safety deficits in the private rented sector. It says:

''As a proportion of housing in a sector, the incidence of fuel poverty is greatest in the private rented sector'',

and it puts the figure at 39 per cent. Experts believe that that amounts to 709,000 households in England alone, which means that more than 1 million people probably suffer fuel poverty in that sector. The UK figure will be higher, and may amount to more than 1 million households, and 1.5 million people.

The Government tabled amendments that sought to delete the provisions relating to licensing houses in multiple occupation. The amendments were an odd reversal of their pledges and policies. I am pleased to note that they have reconsidered part 3 and have tabled more constructive amendments, such as new clause 7. I will discuss the implications of that new clause later.

In the Government's most recent statement on the national licensing scheme on Second Reading of the Homelessness Bill, Lord Falconer of Thoroton said:

''We accept all the arguments advanced in favour of it. It is simply a question of finding time—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 November 2001; Vol. 628, c. 406.]

In view of the Government's previous reluctance to accept part 3, I suggest to the Minister that there is no time like the present.

The Minister has said:

'' Ministerial colleagues in the DTLR have made clear that they are seeking agreement to bring forward as soon as possible a housing Bill that will deal with the whole context of measures, not just the limited measures included in the Bill.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 24 January 2002; c. 18.]

However, the Government have promised those measures since 1997. A start in the right direction would not only reflect better on the Government but, more importantly, would decrease the number of deaths in HMOs. The Conservative party broadly supports licensing houses in multiple occupation. However, we will continue to press home our concerns about certain aspects of the provisions.

I have already recognised that the promoter of the Bill has agreed to instigate a maximum cost threshold by which local authorities should abide. We mentioned our concern that good landlords should not be penalised, and that the cost must be kept under constant review. If the costs of licensing become a key

aspect in decisions about whether to continue as landlords or to enter the buy-to-let property market at all, the Bill will have failed. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown stipulated that a registration fee should not exceed £112 per letting agreement for a five-year period. That capped figure is reasonable. Will the Minister confirm that he agrees with it?

We also need further information from the Government on start-up funds that may be available to local authorities to assist with establishing a licensing system. We want to ensure that the legislation protects tenants and landlords, but we do not want it to become burdensome to local authorities. It is important that the implementation of the legislation is thorough and efficient. If it is, bad landlords will have to reform or go out of business.

I also mentioned my concern that local authorities may refuse planning permission to landlords who wish to change the use of a property from an HMO to a single dwelling unit if the price of compliance is too high. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk tabled amendments that would ensure that the owner had the right to revert the HMO to single dwelling status if the costs of refurbishing it to the standards required by the licensing scheme exceeded 50 per cent. of the annual rental income of the property. I ask the Government to consider that.

We also need appropriate time scales for the implementation of licensing requirements. Will the Minister confirm that there will be an effective appeals procedure? The Government have claimed that registered social landlords are governed under other regulatory schemes that ensure that health and safety standards are met, so they do not need to be covered by the Bill. The Minister needs to reassure the Committee that any similar scheme is at least as rigorous as the HMO licensing scheme. I am vehemently opposed to burdens being placed on private rental landlords that are not imposed on registered social landlords. I urge the Government to consider the inclusion of RSLs in the Bill, or to confirm that the demands on them are no less onerous under the Bill. That such confirmation is necessary cannot be in doubt. RSLs need to be controlled as effectively as private landlords because they cater for some of the poorest people in our society, who are in the greatest need of protection.

Other points need ministerial clarification. Hitherto, part of the definition of an HMO was that it was

''occupied by persons who do not form a single household.''

The Bill sought to change that definition to a house

''occupied by adult members of more than two families.''

The Government now seem to insist that the definition in the original legislation remains. We need to know the regulatory impact of the amendment. I understand that the Minister wants to avoid a repetition of the Barnes v. Sheffield city council case, in which the court held that a property let to a group of students did not constitute an HMO. In that case, the court gave consideration to factors such as whether the persons

living in the house came to the property as a single group or whether they had been independently enlisted. The Government are understandably keen to avoid similar variable interpretations of what was obviously a hazy definition.

New clause 7 affirms that a single household exists

''only where there is a prescribed relationship between each member of the group and one or more of the others (as the regulations may require)''.

I need the Minister's help in understanding what the regulations require, and the definition of a prescribed relationship. There is a danger that the interpretation of the regulations may give rise to absurdities. Is a group of close friends or colleagues, for example, to be treated differently from an unmarried couple? My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay has posed other examples.

There is potential for considerable contention that could go as far as the courts unless there is demonstrated equity in the definition of those who are in the prescribed group. The Minister should perhaps consider another definition of a single household, such as one based on whether the inhabitants have signed more than one tenancy agreement. That may ensure that the regulations are not unnecessarily onerous for fit and proper landlords, while getting to the heart of the Bill's aim of providing a degree of security to people in HMOs that they have not previously been offered.

My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay spoke, from his considerable experience, about the dangers of redefining an HMO. We will all see that there are considerable difficulties in that redefinition of HMOs when the Minister tells us what the regulations prescribe. I do not say that it should never happen, but I just wonder whether we have given it long enough to ensure that we are producing a good piece of law.

Part of the Bill says that local authorities retain the discretionary right to ascertain whether some HMOs should be registered. I am convinced that that sort of discretionary power for local authorities will remain a problematic part of the licensing system. In order to reduce the potential for problems, would the Minister consider providing updated guidance to local authorities, which would also serve as guidance for the appeals procedure—a procedure that I hope he will endorse?

It is imperative that each local authority should subject its landlords to a nationally uniform registration scheme. Therefore local authorities should operate the same reporting procedures, and the appropriate paperwork should be consistent throughout England and Wales. If local authorities work according to completely different procedures, no one will be able to prove whether one local authority is placing heavier burdens on landlords than another. With that in mind, it would make sense to run a pilot licensing system in a town that has problems. I suggest Brighton, Kemptown or Brighton as a whole. I have already tried this on the hon. Member for Brighton,

Kemptown and he is rather keen on it. We have a willing volunteer for a trial.

David Lepper (Labour/Co-operative, Brighton, Pavilion)

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I represent Brighton, Pavilion. He may not be aware that there has been a pilot scheme in my constituency, on a voluntary basis, for just over a year. The council reports that it has no record of landlords withdrawing their properties from the market or of rent rises that can be directly attributed to the licence fees associated with the scheme. In a sense, what the hon. Gentleman suggests is already under way. The council in Brighton and Hove is about to extend that scheme, irrespective of what decisions Parliament takes on a mandatory scheme, across the whole of the city area.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving the Committee that information. I had been given it previously by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown. As I understand it, the scheme that is extant in Brighton is slightly different. It does not have all the provisions of the Bill, for fairly obvious reasons. Brighton has many of the problems that the Bill seeks to address. It has some glorious crescents and terraced housing in multiple occupation by students either at Sussex university or what used to be Brighton polytechnic—I do not know its new name. As the scheme has worked so well in Brighton, Pavilion, it should be extended elsewhere. It would be a good idea to ensure, through the Bill, that that happens.

As for rents, Brighton is in a fairly populous, popular and fairly rich area, and parts of it have the great benefit of a large student population. Students leave a seaside town during the summer months, and their accommodation can then be let to those who spend their summer holidays by the seaside. I do not think that that appertains in all university or ex-polytechnic towns; there are differences.

I only suggested Brighton, Kemptown at the request of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown. Whether the location is Brighton, Kemptown or Brighton, Pavilion or Billericay or Bolsover matters not. We simply need to test the proposals with a trial, find out whether they work and amend them if necessary before they are implemented nationally.

I am grateful for the opportunity to express support in principle for this part of the Bill. The licensing of HMOs has a valuable part to play, but the Minister must reassure the Committee about much of the detail before we can give it our wholehearted support.

Alan Simpson (Labour, Nottingham South)

My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown may be a willing volunteer for a pilot scheme, but I suspect that he would quickly discover that he was a lamb to the slaughter at the hands of his colleagues on his way out of the Room. Many hon. Members on the Committee and even more in the House are looking not for a pilot scheme, but a national scheme to address the known problems that many of us have been struggling to address for too long.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I apologise; I may have given the wrong impression. I was not talking about a pilot scheme by itself; I said that we should trial the scheme

to ensure that it worked properly before implementing it nationally.

Alan Simpson (Labour, Nottingham South)

I am sure that the practical issues surrounding the implementation of such a change would be more than taken on board by the Minister; he is particularly sensitive to the importance of getting things right. However, it is important for the Committee to locate itself back in the real world, which the Bill is designed to address, and to move the situation forward. If we waited for perfect definitions on which to base legislation, we would never have any legislation.

The important question that we must ask is whether the definitions and provisions in the Bill move us on significantly from the mess that we are in now. There is not a shadow of a doubt that the answer is yes. The status quo is utterly unacceptable. The Barnes v. Sheffield decision has paralysed local authorities such as mine and many other university towns and cities. They presume that they cannot intervene now because the courts have ruled against them, and they are looking to Parliament to define a different framework within which local authorities are required to act. In that context, the new definitions that have been offered are a significant improvement on the current situation.

It is important that, as a Committee, we reject the amendments that have been tabled, but it would be even better if the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) did not move them. It is also important to set out why the amendments should not be moved. They are based on fairly significant misjudgments about the nature of the issues and where they would take us.

Let me explain the first misjudgment. We are in danger of becoming confused between contracts and conditions. Various contracts are available for the acquisition of properties, whether to rent or buy. It is in contract law that one begins to explore the possibilities of people having joint contracts for a property. They might not have a relationship in the terms that the Bill addresses. They might have a commercial relationship, as occupants; one is able to do that. However, we must not end up getting drawn into a situation in which people can contract into mythical relationships—in this context, the word relationships should be placed in parentheses—because that would be used as a vehicle to return to the Barnes v. Sheffield position, where everyone was involved in a tenancy agreement relationship, regardless of whether it had any meaning in human terms.

If that were to happen, Parliament would look absurd, and hon. Members of the Conservative party, whose traditions have been particularly vociferously rooted in the defence of the family, would find themselves in difficulties if they were accused of creating fictitious families entirely for contractual purposes. The issue is not about whether there is a number of consenting students or adults to that contract. It is about the meaningful nature of a relationship and—to raise a separate issue—the conditions in which people live. It is important that we separate those issues out.

It is legitimate to be concerned about whether there would be an effect on the supply of private rented property in any areas. My understanding of what happened in Scotland is that much of the difficulty related to the substantial costs of the registration process, and I welcome the fact that the Minister, in the debate about the money resolution, attempted to pre-empt some of the dangers of going down the same path that this legislation might present.

It is not necessarily the case that there would be a diminution of the market. Nottingham has been a prosperous city, and it is currently experiencing dynamic growth both in its economy and in the number of students who are coming to both of its universities. One of the things that has already begun to change is that, commercially, people have begun to understand that, with regard to some of the most wretched properties that are let to large groups of students, there is an opportunity for better market offers to be made.

Developers are currently about halfway through the construction of 7,000 new units of accommodation in the city centre, in converted properties or purpose-built flats complexes, which seek specifically to address lettings or sales to couples—or, probably, at most three people—who wish to share a property. That perceived market is partly founded on the belief that there will be large numbers of students who would prefer to share a decent flat than an indecently overcrowded house.

Therefore, with regard to Parliament's responsibilities, we must concern ourselves, not with the possibilities of growth in other parts of the market, but with the conditions of the properties that remain in the student-occupied and multiply occupied areas of our inner cities. We have a responsibility to hold with the current definition, because the local authorities desperately want us to do so, to make it possible to deliver a contractual relationship that will address the pockets of the worst housing poverty, which is a problem that most local authorities face. The vast majority of landlords welcome that change as an opportunity. They wish there to be a clear distinction between the decent landlords who offer decent conditions for their tenants, and those who simply exploit the vulnerability of tenants who have no other choices.

We must also understand that some of the terms used in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Billericay beg as many questions as they appear to answer. When I read them, a question immediately came to my mind with regard to people who are subject to more than one tenancy agreement. Have they had more than one tenancy agreement or are they currently involved in more than one tenancy agreement? Was the tenancy agreement made at the start of the letting? Is it a tenancy agreement that varies when someone leaves the property and someone else joins it? Is it a new tenancy agreement? If people start off in a relationship, but then fall out and agree to share the same property, will they be subject to a different tenancy agreement? If people fall in love and

change the nature of their relationship, will that change the tenancy agreement? Such matters roll us down a path that is riddled with its own absurdities. It is extremely important that we, as a Committee, understand at what we should be directing our attention and at what we should not.

John Baron (Conservative, Billericay)

I shall take up two points, one of which concerns Scotland. The matter was not about the variation of licence fees, although, in many cases, that was great. It was a factor that resulted in the property stock in the private rented sector diminishing in size. However, different local authorities had different requirements and that often meant that great costs were incurred because of the application process. According to Unite—I have no reason to doubt its figures—in complying with Glasgow city council's requirements, which were different from other cities' requirements, its licence application cost it £10,000 in photocopying and administration costs. It is an issue not only of licence fees, but of the process of applying for registration.

I appreciate that I may be stepping slightly over the mark, but tenancy agreements would be the second-best option. The best option would be to leave matters as they are, but if we are to tinker with the definition of HMOs, it must be clear what a tenancy agreement involves. If someone leaves a house and a new person joins it, a new tenancy agreement must be introduced and signed by all parties, the effect of which would be that everyone would be jointly and severally liable and there is a sense of one community. If there were more than one tenancy agreement, different groups would operate and the property could legitimately be considered an HMO.

Alan Simpson (Labour, Nottingham South)

I am grateful to receive clarification from the hon. Gentleman on his second point. It reinforces my belief that we shall be taken right back into the mess over Barnes v. Sheffield and be unable to get out of that hole. I believe genuinely that the Minister is giving us the opportunity to get out of the hole and not jump into a similar one.

I accept the first point made by the hon. Member for Billericay. It was to be my concluding remark in response to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire. We must view with caution the notion of a uniform structure that is imposed throughout the country. The hon. Member for Billericay emphasised one of the realities with which we shall be confronted, which is that different circumstances will face local authorities. To ensure that we do not bind ourselves into a one size, fit-all model with no flexibilities, it would help if the hon. Gentleman spoke to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire so that we do not deliver inflexibilities. It is important that they are pursued against the test of what works locally. In that context, the definition offered to us by the Government contains a balance of flexibilities and a way to move forward. They have set out the need to move on from the status quo.

We would be criticised by those outside the House if we did not move on from the straitjacket that Barnes v. Sheffield has imposed on us. I hope that the

amendments are not accepted because, generally, they would be more of a hindrance than a help, even on the terms of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire. I hope that we can maintain consensus in Committee by continuing to support Government amendments, and I hope that we have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown.

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

Considering that we are discussing amendment No. 51, which is a tightly defined amendment, it has been a wide-ranging debate, which has covered just about every issue that could arise in part 3.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. I am sure that you will not mind my pointing out that we are discussing more than amendment No. 51. It is grouped with several amendments, which are quite wide-ranging.

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

My apologies. I understood that new clause 7 was not yet under discussion.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

It is.

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

That is fine, as that saves me from making two speeches. I am sure that the Committee will be grateful for that.

I would like to focus on definition, as that is the key question. We must concentrate on that definition; if we cannot define what we are registering, we will get a bit lost. I take issue with the hon. Member for Billericay, who is attempting to return to the existing status quo definition of single households. In light of the Barnes v. Sheffield decision, the status quo is not what was intended under the original legislation. This is a case in which the courts have made a law by precedent that Parliament did not intend to make.

That precedent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) pointed out, has made it extremely difficult for local authorities to take appropriate action with HMOs when there are real problems. They cannot do it because Barnes v. Sheffield has left a gaping hole in the law. In clause 5, we attempted to arrive at a new definition based on the family. I readily admit that there could be problems with that when it is put to the test. I am happy to accept new clause 7. Parliamentary counsel has done quite a good job. It has put a double lock on the matter. New clause 7 is based on the concept of the single household but defines what can be considered a single household. That is important. However, I ask the Minister for clarification.

I must take a measure of blame for the provisions because I suggested to officials in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions that they should introduce the family criterion in association with the household criterion; otherwise, letting agencies would drive a coach and horses through HMO registration by making a collection of disparate people sign up to a tenancy agreement on the same day, although they were not a household with anything in common. That would undoubtedly happen. New clause 7 contains both a provision for the single household and a provision for the Secretary of State to determine what a single household is and what the relationships shall be.

John Baron (Conservative, Billericay)

I have read the ratio decidendi of the Barnes v. Sheffield case. Will the hon. Gentleman explain his anxiety? It is clear that the tenants were happy and had not suffered injury. They had freely chosen to occupy the property and were happy in it. The landlords provided fire provisions. Why is he so unhappy with the Law Lords' decision in that case?

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

The decision may have made both tenants and landlords happy in those circumstances, but those circumstances are unusual. I find it difficult to imagine that tenants would be as happy in some of the HMOs in Brighton, for instance, where fire standards are not as the hon. Gentleman describes in that case. One example does not cover all circumstances. It is not possible to generalise from one example.

John Baron (Conservative, Billericay)

The case of Barnes v. Sheffield seems to have been mentioned a lot, but the hon. Gentleman now seems to accept that little was wrong with the case.

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

No.

John Baron (Conservative, Billericay)

What did the hon. Gentleman find wrong in the case of Barnes v. Sheffield? The tenants were perfectly happy, no injury had been caused, and fire provisions had been supplied. Having read the ratio decidendi, I understand that the case centred on whether structural work was necessary to create additional halls and lobbies in a house of modest size when adjacent, similar houses were not required to fulfil such requirements.

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

The decision makes it difficult to apply existing HMO regulations to a whole raft of housing stock, because a landlord can say that a property is occupied by a single household that is not a single household in any sense that the hon. Gentleman or I would understand. That is the difficulty, and that is why we need a better and more court-proof definition of HMO. I am not happy for definitions to be made by courts. I would much prefer that they were made by Parliament.

Alan Simpson (Labour, Nottingham South)

I suspect that my hon. Friend has partly answered my question. Does he agree that an important distinction is to be made between whether people are happy and whether they are covered by national regulations that give them rights? Happiness may be a nice criterion by which to judge life, but it is not one against which it is possible to measure the conditions in which people are being invited to live or the use to which properties are put. It is against such objective criteria that a national framework based on rights and responsibilities supersedes one determined by the happiness or unhappiness of the contracting parties.

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is precisely what we are trying to achieve with the Bill. I have just been reminded that a Conservative student organisation, Conservative Future, strongly objects to any attempt to return to or retain the single household definition. It wants what we suggest, because that will be much clearer and will prevent attempts to avoid registration of what should be HMOs. I hope—it is not possible to guarantee anything once clever lawyers get to work—that it

will provide clarity and that everyone will know where they stand. That is absolutely essential.

I shall not try to deal with all the points that have been made. They will be relevant to other clauses.

The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Billericay relate to the clause as drafted. I shall ask my colleagues to oppose the question that the clause stand part of the Bill so that we may substitute new clause 7, which would negate the amendments. The hon. Gentleman would have to pursue his amendment (a) to new clause 7, which would have nearly the same effect. I raise that as a procedural point.

I am advocating the new definition, but I would like the Minister to give the clearest indication that he can of the nature of the prescribed relationships that would be accepted as single households. Are we including married couples, men and women living together in established partnerships, same-sex partnerships and other arrangements? That must be spelled out, and it must be sensible and sensitive.

I wish to raise one other important point. Clause 5 changes section 345 of the Housing Act 1985 and inserts into it lists of properties that would, without being specifically exempted, clearly fall within the HMO definitions. Hospitals, nursing homes and so on were originally classed as subject to exemption on the basis that they were already covered by other schemes of regulation, which we would not wish to duplicate. I ask the Minister to give some clarification about his intentions in new clause 7, which says:

''The Secretary of State may also make regulations prescribing descriptions of houses which . . . are not to be regarded as houses in multiple occupation within the meaning of this Part.''

With those important considerations, which I would like the Minister to address, I am happy with new clause.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

We have certainly had a wide-ranging, interesting and reflective debate, made memorable by the fact that the hon. Member for Billericay contrived to make not just one speech in presenting his amendment but, by my count, seven speeches by way of lengthy interventions. That is a new parliamentary device, in which he shows great skill.

The hon. Gentleman raised an interesting point. There is no question that this is a difficult area. Everyone wants to get it right, although we may not agree about exactly what is right. This is not a great ideological issue, nor do I think that it should be, but we must find the right balance. The hon. Member for Billericay does not think that we have and seeks to remove the definition in clause 5, in which an HMO is

''a house occupied by adult members of more than two families''

and to reinstate the definition from the Housing Act 1985, in which an HMO is

''a house which is occupied by persons who do not form a single household.''

The reason for that is that he believes that the definition in the Bill will lead to a lot of landlords,

including reputable ones, deciding to withdraw the rented accommodation that they currently offer. [Interruption.] I know exactly how my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown feels when his alarm goes off.

I argue against that on two grounds. First, the allegation of the hon. Member for Billericay about the consequences is based on the acceptance of clause 5. However, the Government do not propose to do that. Instead we have introduced new clause 7, which is rather different. Secondly, he said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West, on moving away from the status quo, that there is nothing wrong with the status quo and that one must give good reasons for moving away from it.

My hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, North-West and for Nottingham, South gave, in passionate and well-argued speeches, the grounds for doing that. We are left with Barnes v. Sheffield City Council. The riposte of the hon. Member for Billericay is to ask what is wrong with Barnes v. Sheffield City Council. He rightly says that it was a fair decision on the particular facts of the case, but I answer that that does not provide a proper basis for dealing with HMOs generally. It would involve close inquiry into the living arrangements in each case, which is not a satisfactory basis for making law. If we stick with Barnes v. Sheffield City Council, there is a risk in examples, such as those that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South gave, of fictitious relationships being pretended to achieve a certain contractual condition.

There is a case for moving on, but the problem is how to do that. That is where the difficulties start. Our proposals on HMO licensing suggested a definition based on family. To some degree, we are moving back in the direction of the hon. Member for Billericay. We suggested that because of the difficulties that many local authorities and landlords have faced over the interpretation of the current definition.

However, considering the drafting of the Bill in preparation for Committee, we encountered several difficulties with that approach. We are not in a position to produce a satisfactory family-based definition in time that could work within the restrictions placed on us by the current regime as set out in part 11 of the 1985 Act. In other words, this is a private Member's Bill that does not deal with the much wider context in which the Government propose to introduce their legislation. We are constrained and have found it difficult within the constraints to devise a watertight definition that returns to family and family relationships as its key point.

We therefore propose to continue to use a definition based on household, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, but, importantly, and in recognition of the problems produced by the current definition, seek to improve on it. We propose to provide the Secretary of State with powers to prescribe what shall be regarded as a house, when someone shall be regarded as occupying a house and where persons shall be regarded as forming a single household. I shall speak about that further when I examine new clause 7.

Amendment No. 52 and amendment (a) to new clause 7 seek to base a definition on tenancy. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South made quite a withering attack on that proposal. I can understand my hon. Friend's desire to address the current difficulties with the definition of an HMO. As I have said, new clause 7 will allow a much clearer definition of HMO, which I hope will satisfy him.

I acknowledge that the current definition has allowed uncertainty regarding what constitutes a household. We are aware of the concern about whether a house shared by students should be judged to be an HMO. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) raised a point about purpose-built private student accommodation. That will fall outside the definition of an HMO, assuming that it is self-contained and complies with building regulations, which will be made clear through regulations.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

I am not sure whether that is a good or a bad thing. People to whom I have spoken welcome their inclusion under the provisions of energy conservation measures, but how long will that position be tenable? Obviously, such buildings will age; will there be a subsequent attempt to include them, or will student accommodation be specialist and not play any part in HMOs, come what may?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

We are extremely keen that student accommodation is included under the definition of an HMO in principle, but my hon. Friend specifically mentioned purpose-built private accommodation for students, which is separate.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

The hon. Member for Stroud was talking about accommodation offered by an organisation called Unite, which provides study bedrooms with communal facilities. What is the difference between that and another purpose-built block that provides bed-sitting rooms and communal facilities?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I will postpone giving an answer to that question until later, when I shall be answering several of the hon. Gentleman's questions.

I would like to return to the Barnes v. Sheffield City Council court ruling, which suggested that such a property would not be viewed as an HMO. However, we are seeking to provide greater clarity to that definition through our amendments. I give a commitment to the Committee that further legislation will make it clear that student properties of that sort will be viewed as HMOs.

I would like to address the point raised by the hon. Member for Billericay—it is a long time since he said it—about sharers. It is not true that the legislation was never meant to cover sharers. The problem is that the identification of household is unworkable. Therefore, all sharers are excluded, and among them are vulnerable groups of students who do not comprise households in any real sense. We intend to retain the phraseology of household but to clarify it, and we will do so with the intention of recognising established non-family and non-marital relationships where appropriate. I am coming on to the question raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown

about prescribed relationships. We will also carefully target policy by setting thresholds at levels that will not affect small sharing arrangements and we will certainly focus on houses with three or more storeys, and larger properties.

John Baron (Conservative, Billericay)

Will the Minister give way?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Is the hon. Gentleman making an intervention or a speech?

John Baron (Conservative, Billericay)

I thank the Minister for giving way. I promise that my question will be quick. When will we obtain clarification about the prescribed relationships? New clause 7 states that they will be specified in the regulations. Can we have guidance on that?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

They will, but since that is another request for clarification about prescribed relationships, I will deal with that point now. I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown whether we intend that a prescribed relationship will include a man and woman living together as husband and wife, although not married, or a same-sex couple living together in a gay or lesbian relationship. The answer is yes; we included those examples of a prescribed relationship subject to the important proviso that we do not intend to create a situation in which landlords and enforcement authorities would be forced to make inquiries into couples' sleeping arrangements in order to decide whether they really are couples.

The problem is that one needs rules based on genuine relationships without having the amount of prying necessary to establish the truth. We also want to avoid creating a loophole that would adversely affect the protection of students in boyfriend-girlfriend relationships. We will have to work out how to create workable criteria, which will be quite difficult. However that is done, established couples, regardless of gender, will be treated as being related. That is the criterion; the question is whether we can get criteria that will clearly establish that without the kind of prying that nobody wants.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I ask this question only because it illustrates one of the difficulties. Although a Muslim husband with three wives would clearly be in a familial relationship, what about a person with three—I was going to say concubines—lovers who all live together? I do not know the answer, and I wonder whether the prescribed relationship will cause a series of problems for the Minister.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I can see that that will run and run. The people that the hon. Gentleman cited in his example would be included, but I agree that it is difficult to draw lines. He will have to leave it with us to come forward with criteria, which will include the proviso that I indicated, that will establish a genuine, familial-type relationship in regulations.

If I may turn to amendment No. 53—

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

Will the Minister give way?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I am anxious to move on, but I will give way for the last time.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

I am grateful to the Minister, and I shall try to be quick.

In my original speech on new clause 7, I referred to prescribed relationships as a minefield. It is not particularly likely that they are going be clearer than what we had before. People who are heterosexual could claim a fictitious homosexual relationship in order to be seen as a single household. How will the Minister go about avoiding that?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

As I said, there are innumerable questions that can genuinely be raised. We have not been able to draw up in the time available criteria within the constraints of section 11 of the 1985 Act that would meet the purposes of the private Member's Bill. When we come forward with our Bill, as we intend to, we will not be subject to those constraints, and I hope that we will be able to answer those questions, which I agree are genuine and difficult. There is no doubt that the Government have tried to answer them with all sincerity.

It is very difficult to find an exactly right criterion that is established as fair, but that cannot be manipulated for fictitious purposes. The only way in which to avoid that is to move away from the genuine relationship concept. The difficulties about which we heard earlier in the debate would be even greater if one tried to do that. The hon. Gentleman will have to leave that with us for the time being.

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

Will the Minister give way?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I cannot but give way to my hon. Friend, but I want to move on to amendment No. 54.

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Minister. Will he consider making the regulations relating to clause 5 by affirmative resolution rather than a statutory instrument subject to annulment? The matter would be sensitive, and the Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform would potentially be giving him the power to amend definitions under primary legislation by statutory instrument. That would therefore be subject to amendment in the Lords, which could impede the progress of the Bill because we may run out of time. Will the Minister consider using that procedure for this sensitive subject?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I shall consider it, but we are talking about Government legislation, which is in the process of preparation; we are still looking for a legislative slot. I hear my hon. Friend and shall consider what he has said.

Amendment No. 53 proposes to exclude converted blocks of self-contained flats from the definition of an HMO, where the conversion has been carried out in accordance with building regulations. The Government intend to prescribe the circumstances in which a building is not to be regarded as an HMO. It has been Government policy to exclude blocks of self-contained units, which have been properly converted to modern building control standards, from HMO registration, and we intend to exclude them from being considered HMOs altogether.

Service tenancy agreements are somewhat more complicated. Such a tenancy arises pursuant to

accommodation being made available in connection with a person's employment. Many such tenancies would be excluded because the accommodation is not within the definition of an HMO, such as a porter occupying a flat in a purpose-built block. Some might also be excluded by virtue of the fact that the accommodation is not occupied in the sense of being lived in. In other cases, the accommodation may be an HMO, and the law in England and Wales does not require that occupants of an HMO live in it as their only or principal home. Thus, accommodation above a restaurant that is shared by staff might form an HMO. Some forms of occupation will be subject to regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. However, where that does not apply, and the property is an HMO, the Government do not consider that such occupants should be deprived of basic health and safety protection simply because they are housed by their employers.

I now come to the thorny issue of what should be classified as an HMO. The current definition is recognised as being far from satisfactory, and it is important to get it right. We aim to achieve that by removing detailed definitions of an HMO from the Bill. The hon. Member for South Norfolk made reference to that. Removing it and leaving it to secondary legislation gives us the opportunity to prepare a definition that is watertight. The Government are sympathetic to the use of the ''family'', as opposed to the ''household'', definition, which has been the subject of several disputes in the courts; even the family definition, however, is not beyond criticism. With regard to advice from our parliamentary draftsmen, we are adopting a non-prescriptive approach based on household and for that reason I propose that clause 5 does not stand part of the Bill as new clause 7 will address the difficulties.

Problems arise because an entirely new definition cannot be satisfactorily worked out in a Bill that makes improvements only to part 11 of the 1985 Act, rather than reforms the law relating to HMOs comprehensively, as our proposals envisage. What we propose will enable us to deal with the main problems with the current definition, and pave the way for the new legislation. We intend to achieve the same effect as introducing a new family-based definition, by saying in regulations that a household cannot be said to exist unless there are family relationships—or their equivalent, such as established partnerships—between those living together. That will ensure that most houses in which persons live together who are likely to lack a sense of shared responsibility, including shared student houses, are brought within the definition of HMO.

We intend to clarify ''house'' to exclude purpose-built blocks of self-contained flats, as proposed in clause 5. For the moment, older, converted blocks of flats will be covered and not excluded. That is desirable until stronger general fire safety powers are introduced because it would be practically impossible for technical reasons to include them if a new definition were introduced in the Bill.

We also intend to clarify ''occupation'' so that bona fide hotels and conference centres are outwith HMO

regulations, but homeless and other persons living residentially in hotels and students in term-time shared occupation are covered, again as proposed in clause 5.

We shall use regulations to clarify that the other property mentioned in clause 5 as being exempt from HMO status are not HMOs and I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown and other Committee members.

A number of other specific points was raised, one of which concerned fees. Section 346A(5) of the Housing Act 1985 empowers the Secretary of State to regulate and specify the maximum permissible fee that local authorities may charge and cases in which no fee is payable. I gather that the Local Government Association suggested £112 as an example. We share the desire not to place undue financial burdens on landlords, but we want the regime to become self-financing. We must do further work, but I stress that we want costs to be kept to a minimum.

The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire asked about appeals. The existing mechanisms are specified in the 1985 Act and appeals may be taken to the county court. Those mechanisms will continue.

An interesting cross-party idea was to have a test run in Brighton, Kemptown and there were tests under the 1985 Act. The provisions are voluntary for local authorities and the purpose of the Bill is to make them compulsory. The tests that took place under the 1985 Act showed that the schemes had technical weaknesses, including the definition of HMO, and limited powers to rectify problems. It is not sensible to put the details of exemptions and inclusions in the Bill because a lot of technical detail referring to other legislation would be necessary. We must consult the relevant authorities and bodies and I stress that it is vital for the detail of the definition to be right. Unless it is the hon. Member for Billericay properly made this point we shall either reduce the supply of cheap accommodation by over-regulating, or leave loopholes that can be exploited so that vulnerable people are left unprotected in defective housing. The precise issue is to get the right balance.

Amendments (b) and (c) to new clause 7 will help us to get the detail of definition of an HMO right by enabling the regulations to provide what categories of buildings or parts of buildings are to be regarded as HMOs.

Amendment No. 43 is a technical amendment better to reflect the Bill's purpose.

I apologise for the length and complexity of this intervention, which was more a speech than an intervention.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

I may have missed this, but I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify the example that I gave. If four students chose to live together in a rented terraced house in Norwich—each having their own bedroom, sharing communal facilities and essentially living together as one household but without any sexual relationships—would that be considered an HMO?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

The crucial point concerns whether they are self-contained and the existence of another

system of regulation or public control. If student accommodation is in the private sector and not self-contained or run by the university, as in the case to which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire referred, it would be covered.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

I am speaking about a four-bedroomed, Victorian terraced house, which under my definition of self-contained would have its own entrance and be self-contained. That being the case and the four people having chosen to live together and rent the place from a landlord with their own bedroom but shared facilities, would that be classified as an HMO?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I am always grateful for further advice. All examples will have to be clarified, and I am advised that it will depend on the threshold. We still have to establish where that threshold is. The hon. Gentleman chose the example of four self-contained units; we must decide where that threshold is drawn, and that will provide the answer to his question.

I hope that in light of my comments, the hon. Member for Billericay accepts that our policies will properly address the issue of definition and that our approach will provide the clarity that we all want. I hope that, if he is paying attention to what I am saying, he will be prepared to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

John Baron (Conservative, Billericay)

May I seek clarification from the Minister? He has tried to tell us what a prescribed relationship would be, but I admit that, like my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, I am uncertain about what would be defined as an HMO. Will the Secretary of State give detailed examples of what would be HMOs? New clause 7 says that they would be classified in regulations, but is the Minister willing to introduce them on Report? Would a three-bedroomed flat, with no locks on bedroom doors and a communal living area, be considered an HMO, or will that be clarified on Report?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I thought that I had finished my speech. I invited the hon. Gentleman, in light of what I had said at considerable length, to consider withdrawing the amendment. The answer to his question—I hope that he will not continue to ask questions, but answer mine—is that we will not be able to resolve the issue by Report, which may be in a month or two. We will do our best to introduce further amendments on Report, but it would not be possible to answer all the detailed and complex issues within the next month, especially bearing in mind the consultation that we will need to have with relevant parties.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 8.

Clause 6 - Repeal of Section 346 of the Housing Act 1985

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 2—Registration schemes—

'(1) The Housing Act 1985 is amended as follows.

(2) For section 346 there is substituted—

''346 Registration schemes

(1) Every local housing authority shall make a registration scheme which contains—

(a) provisions for the compilation and maintenance by the authority of a register for their district of houses in multiple occupation, and

(b) control provisions (see section 347).

(2) A registration scheme need not be for the whole of the authority's district and need not apply to every description of house in multiple occupation.

(3) But a registration scheme must apply to every house in multiple occupation in the authority's district of a description prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(4) A registration scheme may vary or revoke a previous registration scheme; and a scheme which revokes a previous scheme may contain transitional provisions.

(5) A local housing authority shall make—

(a) a registration scheme containing provisions mentioned in subsection (1)(a) no later than the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which section (Registration schemes) of the Home Energy Conservation Act 2002 comes into force; and

(b) a registration scheme containing control provisions no later than the end of the period of two years beginning with that day.

(6) Any power to make regulations under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.''.

(3) In section 347(1) (control provisions), for ''A registration scheme may contain control provisions, that is to say,'' there is substituted ''In this Part ''control provisions'' means''.

(4) In section 348B(1) (special control provisions), for ''which contains control provisions may also'' there is substituted ''may''.

(5) In section 349 (steps required to inform public about schemes), subsection (5) is repealed.'

New clause 3—Model schemes and confirmation of schemes—

'For section 346B of the Housing Act 1985 there is substituted—

''346B Model schemes and confirmation of schemes

(1) The Secretary of State may prepare a model registration scheme, with or without special control provisions (see section 348B).

(2) A registration scheme which—

(a) conforms to the model scheme, or

(b) does not conform to the model scheme by reason only of containing provisions of a description prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State,

does not require confirmation by the Secretary of State and comes into force on such date (at least one month, but not more than three months, after the making of the scheme) as

may be specified in the scheme.

(3) If—

(a) a registration scheme varies a previous registration scheme, and

(b) the scheme as varied falls within subsection (2)(a) or (b),

the registration scheme making the variation does not require confirmation by the Secretary of State and comes into force on such date (at least one month, but not more than three months, after the making of the scheme) as may be specified in the scheme.

(4) Any other registration scheme does not come into force unless confirmed by the Secretary of State.

(5) The Secretary of State may vary a scheme before confirming it.

(6) A scheme requiring confirmation comes into force one month after it is confirmed.

(7) If the Secretary of State varies or withdraws the model registration scheme, the registration scheme made by a local housing authority is revoked at the end of the relevant period unless during that period—

(a) the scheme is revoked by another registration scheme made by the authority,

(b) the scheme is varied so as to fall within subsection (2)(a) or (b), or

(c) the scheme is re-confirmed by the Secretary of State or the authority make a registration scheme varying the scheme which is confirmed by him.

(8) The relevant period is the period of six months beginning with the day on which the Secretary of State varies or withdraws the model registration scheme.

(9) Any power to make regulations under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.''.'.

Amendment No. 44, in title, line 3, leave out from beginning to 'schemes' and insert

'amend the law relating to registration'.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I propose the omission of clause 6. New clause 2 has the same effect as the clause, making it mandatory rather than voluntary for local authorities to introduce registration schemes within one year of commencement of the Act. In its more detailed drafting it provides consistency with new clause 4, which seeks to amend sections 345 and 348 of the Housing Act 1985.

The power to make regulations saying what types of houses must be included in registration, as provided in the new subsection (3), is one of the means that will be used to ensure consistency across registration schemes. So all HMOs must be subject to registration, save for the smaller ones proposed in clause 8, where local authorities will be left with discretion as to whether and where to introduce registration.

New clause 2 should be viewed in conjunction with new clause 3. It provides a set timetable for implementation of mandatory registration one year after commencement and for mandatory control provisions two years after commencement. It also proposes a power in subsection (3) for the Secretary of State to say what types of HMOs must be included in any registration scheme. That is because we are working with the existing legislation that, as it stands, allows local authorities to decide what kinds of HMOs are covered, and in what districts.

New clause 3 will apply to registration schemes that are mandatory and to those that are subject to local authority discretion—the smaller HMOs. It will ensure consistency in registration schemes across the country. Although local authorities will be able to propose variants on model schemes published by the Secretary of State, in practice most schemes are expected to comply with the model scheme. The Secretary of State will have the power to confirm, or not to confirm schemes proposed by local authorities.

Amendment No. 44 is a technical amendment to better reflect the Bill's purpose.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I seek clarification. The Minister talked about local authorities' ability to vary the model scheme. Is that a variation not only of the scheme but of the documentation? Is he seized of the point that to be able to determine not only the efficacy but the justice of a scheme, it is worth ensuring that there is as little variation as possible? It is understood, however, that different areas may have different and pressing problems, which they may wish to amplify the registration to cover.

I welcome the Minister's recognition that high fees could put off good landlords. As I understand it, under the Houses in Multiple Occupation (Fees for Registration Schemes) Order 1997, the level was £60 per habitable room per HMO under the scheme. Is the level proposed by the Local Government Association—£112 per five-year period per tenancy agreement—approximately the level that the Minister is considering? I understand that he cannot be explicit, but existing and potential landlords would be considerably reassured if the figure was in that region.

Could the Minister clarify the appeals procedure? He correctly said that, under section 348 of the Housing Act 1985, HMO landlords had a right of appeal to the county court. The rights of appeal are fairly narrowly drawn. The first relates to the application for registration under a scheme containing control provisions. As I understand it, the only other ground is the condition set by an authority for registering an application under a control scheme. Does that mean that a landlord can go to the county court if he believes that the requirements proposed by the local authority are so onerous as to be greater than those that would be imposed by other authorities in similar circumstances?

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

I will try to get my fives and sevens right, Mr. Benton, so that we do not have number dyslexia, but I shall concentrate on clause 6.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. I accept what he said in the previous debate about not encompassing specialist student accommodation, but following the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, I seek greater clarification of what appeals are possible on individual registration fees. It seems that, because of an inability at national level to clarify the position in Scotland, individual local authorities have been able to impose fees that in some cases have a counter-productive effect. That is the gist of my request.

Is it possible to have a measure by which we can control fee setting so that it does not have a

disproportionate impact? It has been suggested to me that it be related to the cost-of-living index. Whether that would be too complicated, I do not know. However, it is worrying to hear that Glasgow has experienced a 40 per cent. ratcheting up in comparison with other parts of Scotland, because it will accomplish what we all want to avoid—restrict people's willingness to enter that type of accommodation.

I have outlined my main concern, but other groups besides students should be mentioned. I referred earlier to providing specialist accommodation for key workers and we must be careful if such accommodation is to include HMOs. If the registration fee is onerous, it can hit the very people that we are hoping to support. I hope that the Minister will be able to allay fears that the registration fee could, by excessive use of regulation, achieve what most of us do not want to happen.

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

I am happy to see clause 6 replaced by new clauses 2 and 3, which are more explicit. They deal—satisfactorily, I hope—with consistency of registration practice across the country, and address both maximum fees and appeals.

Clause 8, which prescribes what is mandatory and what is discretionary registration, will also be replaced. Registration will take place in two stages: we decide what is an HMO, and then which HMOs must be registered under compulsion. As it stands, the mandatory registration level kicks in for property consisting of more than two storeys used for habitation and occupied by more than five adults—effectively three storeys, and a minimum of six people.

Will the Minister clarify the thinking behind where the mandatory dividing line is set? That will be of great import to landlords, who will, rightly and reasonably, want to know whether the mandatory process applies to them. I see little difference between the aims expressed in the Bill and those of officials within the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, but I would like the Minister to spell it all out, if possible.

Vincent Cable (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

In supporting new clause 2 and the withdrawal of clause 8, is the hon. Gentleman—after all, this is his Bill—accepting that in future the thresholds will be determined by regulations, which might entail lower or higher thresholds than are currently envisaged? What does he assume about the thresholds once clause 8 is withdrawn?

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

My assumption is that thresholds will be determined by regulation. The same principle applies as I raised in respect of new clause 7—that it is preferable for regulations to be made by affirmative order, because it entails much greater scrutiny by the House, and is less likely to attract the ire of the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Clause 8 gives the Secretary of State the regulatory power to amend mandatory registration, and those properties that may or may not be deregistrable. One hopes that that power will be used

in the best possible way. I strongly recommend the affirmative procedure as the best way to proceed.

The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire mischievously suggested that I wanted a pilot scheme in Brighton and Hove. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) pointed out, in effect we already have one. There is ample evidence throughout the country of discretionary registration schemes, from which we can learn good and bad lessons. We can learn lessons from Scotland about mistakes that should be avoided. I hope that the registration scheme proposed by the appropriate authority will avoid those pitfalls and will be reasonable and workable.

We cannot afford to delay implementation if we are going to achieve the other aspects of the Bill, such as energy conservation and combating fuel poverty. We have already waited too long for HMO registration, and I do not wish to delay the outcome of a pilot scheme that would defer national registration by at least two years. We should proceed as fast as we can, but using all the available evidence to ensure that the scheme takes note of all the mistakes that have been made and incorporates best practice.

I am happy to endorse the replacement of clause 6 by new clauses 2 and 3.

Alan Simpson (Labour, Nottingham South)

On a point of clarification, Mr. Benton. Reference was made to the consequence of replacing clause 6 with new clauses 2 and 3 in relation to clause 8. I am aware that we have not yet reached clause 8, to which I tabled an amendment. Is it appropriate for me to make whatever comments I need to make on amendment No. 50 now, or will we still be able to discuss the amendments to clause 8 later?

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

The hon. Gentleman will be able to make his point in the discussion on clause 8.

Alan Simpson (Labour, Nottingham South)

May I do so now?

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

No, when we reach clause 8.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire asked about the scope for varying model schemes. There will be some scope, but the variance will be given only under exceptional circumstances. On fees, he quoted £60 per habitable room. The Local Government Association proposed £112, which is in approximately the same order of magnitude. The fees are unlikely to exceed the LGA estimate. There is no reason why we should move away from the fees set under statutory instrument 1997/229. The current fees place much less of a financial burden on landlords of HMOs than do the fees in Scotland, which are probably what activated the hon. Gentleman. In Edinburgh, the fee is £480 to register for a year. In Glasgow, the fee is £1,700 to register for three years. Under statutory instrument 1997/229, which could be applied to the Bill, a 10-room HMO would cost £600 to register for five years. That is a substantial reduction.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the right of appeal if his local authority imposed conditions that he considered to be unusually onerous compared with

those imposed by other local authorities. In effect, there would be an automatic right of appeal wherever the application for a licence is refused, or any conditions as to works or management are imposed, or if the application is not promptly dealt with. Therefore, there is fairly comprehensive protection.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud referred to registration fees. They will be capped by the Government. There is no appeal against fees as such. The maximum levels are set by the Government. The Secretary of State can specify cases in which no fee is payable, and deal with different cases in different ways.

Lastly, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown, who has just left my side, sought confirmation that we will consider using the affirmative procedure, as he requested. We will consider that—I am sure that he will read about it in tomorrow's edition of The Times—but we will accept it only if there is strong justification. He also mentioned a threshold of five or more occupants, and that is a strong candidate, but the position will have to be carefully considered, as I have stated.

I hope that I have answered all the questions that were raised.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 6 disagreed to.Clause 7Part 11 of the Housing Act 1985

Clause 7 - Part 11 of the Housing Act 1985

Clause 8 - Houses not treated as registrable

Vincent Cable (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page 4, line 34, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.

I would like to take advantage of the ruling of your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Cummings, according to which, although clause 8 is to be removed from the Bill, we are still able to use the debate on this amendment to it to discuss the terms of the threshold of registration of HMOs.

The Minister will set that threshold through guidelines, and he has already said that he regards the existing threshold in the Bill as a good candidate

for inclusion. I suggest that there is a wider definition of the registration threshold that would make a better candidate. The current threshold, as defined in the Bill, is rather narrow. It is a two-prong definition, requiring that a property, to be registered, should have three storeys or more, and that it should also house five adults or more. There are many HMOs that may be at risk, have three storeys or more, but house fewer than five adults. Such households may comprise three or four adults and many children.

There may also be HMOs that have vulnerable residents, are at risk of fire and house five adults or more, but have fewer than three storeys. That is the typical pattern in my constituency. In most suburban areas, as opposed to inner-city areas, there are not many three-storey buildings. A typical Twickenham HMO would have a row of shops with one storey above it and would comprise two or three rooms, with students and others passing through. Many such HMOs would be subject to the same fire risks as a typical HMO in a city like Brighton or central London, but would not be covered by the guidelines, as defined in the Bill. Therefore, we must consider splitting the two definitions.

The reasoning behind that has already been covered and I do not need to go into it in detail. The hon. Member for Billericay has already spoken about the three-storey qualification and given several examples from the 1997 fire risk assessment. There is clear evidence that fire death rates increase dramatically above two storeys, as evidenced by the fact that 52 per cent. of HMO fire deaths occurred in buildings with three storeys or more, but only 16.5 per cent of households actually live in such buildings. The hon. Gentleman did not say that households that contain five or more adults are vulnerable whether or not the house has three storeys. Again, I can quote from the same study by the Department, which explicitly states:

''HMOs which provide accommodation for highly vulnerable persons, large numbers of people or exhibit a special risk . . . also present a relatively high risk. This is regardless of the number of storeys and whether the building is purpose-built for this occupancy or not.''

It continues:

''Certain two-storey HMOs present a high risk, particularly bedsits and homes for vulnerable persons. 48 per cent. of all HMO fire deaths occur in buildings of 1 or 2 storeys.''

I recognise that situation from my constituency and it reflects the way in which the property market has developed.

I ask the Minister to widen the definition. By all means, let us take the numbers that have been given because there must be a cut-off, which will obviously be arbitrary. The three-storey definition seems sensible, as does the definition of three adults, so why can we not use either/or, rather than and, as the basis for defining the threshold? That would take in more properties. No doubt the objection will be raised that the greater the number of properties that are included, the wider the compliance costs will be spread. However, from the point of view of the local authorities who will operate the system, the set-up costs are crucial, and taking into account more

properties, especially if they are at risk, would seem to be an obvious precaution. Will the Minister say whether he is willing to entertain a broader definition, covering a wider range of properties, which his Department's studies suggest are at risk?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument about widening the scope of the properties for registration. He proposes two alternative criteria. We intend that both criteria, rather than either one of them, should be met. It is intended that mandatory registration will apply only to those properties that make up the most problematic part of the HMO sector, but properties occupied by more than four people that are also three storeys or more high exhibit the characteristics about which we are most concerned, such as fire risk and overcrowding. Assuming reasonably full occupation, it is unlikely that a three-storey property would accommodate as few as four people, or that, if there were as few as four occupants, all the problems characteristic of multiple occupation would regularly apply. Precisely for that reason, I recognise that there are particular problems in some localities where there are persistent problems of exploitative management, even of smaller bedsit and shared properties, and for that reason local authorities will be given discretion to require registration of smaller HMOs where there is a particular local problem with accommodation of that sort. The hon. Gentleman's concerns will be met, and on that basis I hope that he will ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I wonder if I may beg your indulgence, Mr. Cummings. I have received information about a point concerning the use of the word ''may'' in regulation, as opposed to ''shall''. May I rapidly deal with it? I am advised that ''may'' is standard drafting, leaving discretion to the Secretary of State. For instance, if other legislation were to supersede the Bill, an absolute requirement to make regulations would be undesirable. There is, despite the use of the word ''may'', a definite intention to make the regulations. I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify that point.

To return to the earlier matter, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) raised a fair point. If both criteria are met, they will be covered, but there will be discretion in smaller cases: for instance, the local authority may register shared bedsits if it so chooses. On that basis, I hope that he will ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Vincent Cable (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

I do not intend to press the amendment, and I accept the spirit of the Minister's reply. I would suggest to him that it is not a question of special cases. There is a case for a wider definition of a wide range of properties in a wide range of areas. His proposal to allow local authorities discretion is helpful, but I would hope that the Minister will talk to some of the charities and others who are involved with the problem of HMOs, and may be persuaded at that stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 4, leave out lines 36 and 37.

John Cummings (Labour, Easington)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 50, in page 4, line 36, leave out:

'a registered social landlord or'.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

The essential purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the provisions apply to every landlord equally. I hope that Committee members share my contention that the Bill should apply to everyone, whether a landlord is public or private. The Minister may argue that it is unnecessary for registered social landlords to be covered by the Bill because they are dealt with in other ways under the law. I asked the Library to provide me with information on the ways in which registered social landlords are covered, and it was able to furnish me with a whole raft of pieces of legislation: the Gas Safety (Installation and Use Regulations) 1994 as amended, the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988, as well as the Housing Act 1985 and others that impact on registered social landlords.

When the Department issued its 1999 consultation paper, ''Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation—England'', it was proposed that RSLs should be exempted from a mandatory licensing scheme. The consultation paper raised the point that the public sector bodies concerned, under some degree of control,

''can be expected to behave responsibly.''

It may be the case in respect of most registered social landlords that they do behave responsibly: I would not doubt that. However, it is equally true that that is not the case in respect of all registered social landlords. I repeat an argument that I made earlier, and on Second Reading. If it is true that private sector landlords have nothing to fear from the Bill, it should also be the case that registered social landlords have nothing to fear from it.

I draw the Committee's attention to comments made with considerable force by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) on Second Reading. Although he expressed support for the general principles of the Bill, which he hoped would become a valuable Act of Parliament, he expressed reservations over the exemptions for registered social landlords in part 3. He said:

''Although there is regulation designed to control registered social landlords, and although in theory they already comply with much that is in the Bill and would apply to other landlords, those schemes do not appear to be satisfactorily policed.''

My hon. Friend went on to instance two registered social landlords that he thought did not meet the standards that one would expect. The first was Notting Hill housing trust, of which he had direct experience because his daughter lived next door to one of its properties. He said:

''It is my personal view that the property is ill managed and has a bad effect on the surrounding neighbourhood.''

He continued:

''I feel strongly that organisations such as Notting Hill housing trust that neglect their responsibilities to their tenants and to their properties should be brought within the ambit of the scheme.''

The other organisation that my hon. Friend mentioned was English Churches housing, about which he said that

''over the past couple of years I have received more complaints from residents, constituents and tenants of English Churches housing than from any other single organisation in my constituency.''

My hon. Friend then said:

''The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown should reflect on part 3 and review the matter in Committee . . . He should consider whether there is a strong case for bringing registered social housing within the ambit of the Bill not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire suggested, on the expiry of the current licence for social housing registration, but immediately.''—[Official Report, 30 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 1255-56.]

It should be possible for this House and this Committee to contribute in their own small way to the ongoing process of the simplification and clarification of the law. That is a remit of the Law Commission, which I believe it has because this place spends its time making law that is ill considered, ill judged and ill drafted, often with too much haste. A simpler regime, where landlords of whatever kind, in the public or private sector, were subject to the same regulations that could be looked up in one place, would be a step in the right direction. I might add in parentheses that that is one reason why I favour giving Ministers of any party less discretion and including more on the face of Bills, to use the jargon. That would give citizens greater opportunity to identify for themselves the provisions of law to which they are subject, simply by going to look them up.

My final point is one that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire made earlier: that registered social landlords often have as tenants some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society. Although it is said that registered social landlords are already covered in other ways, the simplest way to ensure that those poor and vulnerable people are protected in exactly the same way as people in the private sector would be to subject them to exactly the same law, with provisions applying equally to both. There would then be no doubt, and one would not have to look up the law in two places. One law would apply to tenants and landlords and be more easily understood. I hope that my remarks will meet with the Committee's approval.

Alan Simpson (Labour, Nottingham South)

Is it appropriate for me to move amendment No. 50 at this point?

John Cummings (Labour, Easington)

The hon. Gentleman can speak to it.

Alan Simpson (Labour, Nottingham South)

I have three points to make, one political, one practical and one an example. In a way, they all follow on from the comments made by the hon. Member for South Norfolk. It is important to recognise that, in their entire role, registered social landlords must be seen to be held to account to exactly the same standards as every other part of the housing sector. That is my broadly political point, made on the basis not of party but of the reputation of the House. If we take an important step forward and then open a standards gap based on the ownership of the properties, we will be subject to massive public criticism, which will only increase in light of large-scale property transfers by local authorities to registered social landlords. The scale is enormous:

some 600,000 properties have been transferred to registered social landlords. If they are not accountable under the same standards, we will be left with a huge number of difficult questions.

I assure the Minister that my amendment is a probing amendment to a clause that will soon be non-existent. However, it is based on extremely important work carried out throughout the country by Shelter, which examined the position of registered social landlords who are the owners or managers of houses in multiple occupation. At present, they do not appear to be caught in the same regulatory framework.

The example that I wish to cite is of a property in Oxford that was occupied by five vulnerable young persons. It was supposed to have a residential caretaker, but it had not been possible to fill the post for some time. The situation came to the attention of the local authority as a result of a noise nuisance complaint, and contact with the local authority occurred in that context. On inspection, the local authority discovered that the property had 44 defects, including rotted, ill-fitting and boarded-over windows, ill-fitting and holed fire doors, severe disrepair to the external fabric of the property and a fire alarm system that was inoperative and showing faults. Fortunately, the catalogue of defects was put right quickly when brought to the attention of the registered social landlord, but the authority and Shelter brought to our attention the fact that there was no legal duty for it to do so. Such properties must be brought within some sort of regulatory framework.

I am fairly relaxed about that process and appreciate that it would not be best done through the Bill, but we must be very clear about the where and how of delivery. The Housing Corporation, under whose auspices the properties and registered social landlords will, presumably, be held to account, is seeking to replace the existing performance standards guidelines for housing associations. It proposes to introduce a new regulatory code and guidance, which will be formally published soon. The draft regulatory code specifies only that RSLs should ensure that all their properties are maintained in a ''lettable condition.'' The regulatory guidance specifies that RSLs should ensure that their properties exceed minimum statutory requirements, but there is no legal requirement to do so. I simply ask the Minister to ensure that the Housing Corporation insists on such provisions.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

I have great sympathy for both amendments, which effectively state the same thing. It is unfortunate that they apply to a clause that is about to disappear. However, the strong point on which there is cross-party agreement is that there should be a level playing field for the standards to which landlords, be they public or private, are expected to conform. I hope that the Minister will address that.

John Baron (Conservative, Billericay)

To reinforce the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk and the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, I bring to the Committee's attention the preliminary results in the report on the survey of English housing. They showed that greater dissatisfaction existed among RSL tenants as regards the state of their accommodation than among those in the private rented sector. That reinforces the need for amendments Nos. 47 and 50, despite the fact that the clause is about to disappear.

Further to the comments made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, there is an anomaly, it should be corrected and I hope that we will have an opportunity to do just that.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Previously in Committee, I asked the Minister to confirm that the burdens that would be placed on RSLs would be no less onerous than those placed by the Bill on landlords who are letting HMOs. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk stated that the provisions of the Bill should apply to every landlord equally. That would be preferable, providing that the requirements on an RSL are not more onerous than those on a landlord of an HMO. If those requirements are not more onerous, and bearing in mind that RSLs deal particularly with the most disadvantaged people, it would be better if RSLs came within the ambit of the Bill.

The Bill would set up a HECA—Home Energy Conservation Act 1995—officer in every local authority. A HECA officer would be extremely useful to those who live in RSLs. The Bill would set up a system to invigilate, organise and ensure that there are common reporting procedures. The more widely one uses the same system, the more efficient it tends to be. There would need to be particularly compelling reasons, and not just that that is the way in which it has been done before, to persuade me that RSLs should not be under the ambit of the Bill.

As the hon. Member for Nottingham, South has acknowledged, I recognise that this is like talking about a black hole or dead star. The star has almost gone, and it will go in the next few minutes. We require confirmation from the Minister that if the requirements placed on RSLs were no less than the requirements in the Bill, and that they were to be as well invigilated, he would give favourable consideration to ensuring that RSLs were part of the Bill.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

There is clearly cross-party agreement that we should have a look at that issue. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for South Norfolk seeks to bring back into the mandatory registration scheme properties owned by RSLs and local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South also seeks to include RSLs within the regime. I noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown is a convert to that. I recall that on Second Reading he neatly summarised the case for not including such properties. The argument, which is valid so he need not be embarrassed, is that as public sector bodies are under a degree of control—for example, by the housing corporation in the case of RSLs—they are required to meet certain conditions. It would be odd or perverse if local authorities, which are

responsible for enforcing the regime, were included within its scope. I understand the argument and accept the principle that the standards expected of private landlords should apply in the public sector, and the disciplines in the public sector should ensure that that is so. However, there are cases in which that does not happen and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South quoted one. I hope that the Committee will accept that when I say that we are prepared to reconsider the case for not exempting RSLs, that is a matter for secondary legislation.

I understand the arguments concerning local authorities, but there are fundamental difficulties in applying to them a registration scheme that cannot be resolved in time to be included in the Bill. I take note, as will those in the DTLR who will read our debate, of the widespread feeling about that. We shall look again at the question concerning RSLs and if we decide to move, it will be in secondary legislation.

I am grateful for the debate

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I am about to finish, so if the hon. Gentleman wants to say something, he had better be quick.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify his point about secondary legislation? Is he saying that the Bill will include the sentence about registered social landlords not being registrable in any event but that he will then negate it in secondary legislation?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

If we decided after reconsideration that RSLs should be included on the same principle as private landlords and if we thought it appropriate to put that in secondary legislation, we would have to make changes consistent with that on Report.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

On the basis of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

It might be appropriate to explain why we feel that clause 8 should not stand part of the Bill. Government new clauses 2 and 7 replace sections 346 and 345 of the Housing Act 1985. Under those new clauses, the Secretary of State would be able to prescribe what is an HMO, while allowing local authorities to enjoy their existing discretion to introduce legislation concerning only smaller HMOs. We might repent at leisure if the Bill is unduly prescriptive in describing properties that are HMOs. There is much dissatisfaction with existing descriptions, so we should not hastily prescribe in primary legislation what can be left to a statutory instrument. That is why I move that the clause does not stand part of the Bill.

Alan Simpson (Labour, Nottingham South)

To tidy up matters, I wish to clarify that I shall not press amendment No. 50 to a Division. I do not know whether I should beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

John Cummings (Labour, Easington)

That is not necessary.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 9Expenses

Clause 9 - Expenses

Clause 10 - Short title, commencement and extent

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I beg to move amendment No. 56, in page 5, line 12, at end insert—

'( ) Section 1 comes into force at the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.'.

John Cummings (Labour, Easington)

With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 42, in page 5, line 13, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

'( ) The following provisions come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed—

(a) section (Registration schemes),

(b) section (Model schemes and confirmation of schemes),

(c) section (Wales), so far as relating to any power to make regulations conferred by either of those sections.

( ) Otherwise, this Act shall come into force on such day as the appropriate Minister may by order made by statutory instrument appoint; and different days may be appointed for different purposes.

( ) The appropriate Minister may by order made by statutory instrument make such transitional provisions and savings as he considers appropriate in connection with the coming into force of any provision of this Act.

( ) In this Act ''the appropriate Minister'' means—

(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State,

(b) in relation to Wales, the National Assembly for Wales.'.

New clause 5—Wales—

'(1) The reference to the Housing Act 1985 in Schedule 1 to the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/ 672) is to be treated as referring to that Act as amended by this Act.

(2) Subsection (1) does not affect the power to make further Orders varying or omitting that reference.'.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Amendment No. 56 brings the provisions relating to energy conservation into effect automatically 12 months after Royal Assent. I am sure that members of the Committee agree that it is important to have a clear statement of when new legislation comes into effect; 12 months was the period originally suggested under the Bill, so I hope that the amendment will be acceptable.

Amendment No. 42 sets a two-month deadline for commencement in place of the 12-month deadline. That is the shortest period that is usually allowed for commencement. Having regard to new clause 2, local authorities will then have up to a year in which to have a registration scheme up and running and a further year in which to set in hand the application of control provisions and setting conditions for HMOs. The requirement to introduce registration with control provisions will take effect automatically after two years and compliance will be required with a model scheme issued by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly. There will be no need for the making of an order as envisaged under clause 7.

New clause 5 is a technical provision, reflecting the fact that many powers of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have been devolved and are exercisable by the Welsh Assembly.

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

I request that colleagues support my right hon. Friend the Minister's amendment to subsection (2) and that the clause stand part. However, we are left with a small problem, because these amendments were clearly drafted on the assumption of the deletion of part 2. I am happy with the start date provisions, but we are left with no start date for that part. I simply seek an assurance that it will be no later than 12 months after the Bill is enacted, as with the provisions of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, and that that provision will be inserted on Report.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

We are talking about part 2, which is clause 4. It has been agreed that that clause remains part of the Bill, but that the Government will table an amendment on which we will have further discussions—hopefully it will be an agreed amendment—and which will mention eradication of fuel poverty.

My hon. Friend asks about the basis on which that will come into force. It is an odd question, because the Government's fuel poverty strategy, based mainly on the home energy efficiency scheme and the energy efficiency commitment, is already in force. As I said, £600 million has been committed up to 2004. The energy efficiency commitment becomes operative on 1 April this year, so that to which the revised clause 4 refers is already in place. I think that I can give an assurance that the revised clause 4 will come into force on the same basis as the rest of the Bill. However, although those measures need to have a point at which

action begins, I repeat that clause 4 refers to actions that are already well on stream.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I thank the Minister for that explanation and for his initial explanation, but for those of us who are rather slower than he is, could he say how long it will be from the date of Royal Assent before parts 1, 2 and 3 come into force?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I think that I have already answered that question. Government amendment No. 56 automatically brings the provisions relating to energy conservation into effect 12 months after Royal Assent. That relates to part 1. Government amendment No. 42 sets a two-month deadline for commencement in place of the 12-month deadline. It applies to the registration provisions, because the Government want to show that we are serious about introducing them within a rapid timetable. That applies to part 3, and the relevant figure is two years.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 42, in page 5, line 13, leave out subsection (2) and insert:

'( ) The following provisions come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed—

(a) section (Registration schemes),

(b) section (Model schemes and confirmation of schemes),

(c) section (Wales), so far as relating to any power to make regulations conferred by either of those sections.

( ) Otherwise, this Act shall come into force on such day as the appropriate Minister may by order made by statutory instrument appoint; and different days may be appointed for different purposes.

( ) The appropriate Minister may by order made by statutory instrument make such transitional provisions and savings as he considers appropriate in connection with the coming into force of any provision of this Act.

( ) In this Act ''the appropriate Minister'' means—

(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State,

(b) in relation to Wales, the National Assembly for Wales.'—[Mr. Meacher.]

Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 2 - Registration schemes

New clause 3 - Model schemes and confirmation of schemes

New clause 4 - Control provisions

New clause 5 - Wales

New clause 7 - meaning of ''house in multiple occupation''

Title