Housing Bill

Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2004.

Standing Committee E

Housing Bill

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Housing Bill the Standing Committee shall meet when the House is sitting on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 9.10 a.m. and 2.30 p.m;

(2) 18 sittings in all shall be allotted to the consideration of the Bill by the Committee;

(3) the proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the Table below and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.

TABLE ProceedingsTime for conclusion of proceedings Clauses 1 to 16, Schedule 1, Clauses 17 to 25, Schedule 2, Clauses 26 to 29, Schedule 3, Clauses 30 to 43 and new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1 11.25 a.m. on Thursday 22nd January Clause 44, Clause 191, Schedule 9, Clauses 192 to 195, Clauses 45 to 56, Schedule 4, Clauses 57 to 60, Schedule 5, Clauses 61 to 65 and new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 26.55 p.m. on Tuesday 27th January Clauses 66 to 85 and new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 3 5.55 p.m. on Thursday 29th January Clauses 86 to 105, Schedule 6, Clauses 106 to 119 and new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 4 6.55 p.m. on Tuesday 3rd February Clauses 120 to 137, Schedule 7, Clauses 138 to 145 and new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 5 11.25 a.m. on Tuesday 10th February Clauses 147 to 154, Clauses 158 to 164, Clause 146, Clauses 155 to 157, Clauses 165 to 169, Schedule 8 and new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 6 5.55 p.m. on Thursday 12th February Clauses 170 to 190, Clauses 196 to 199, Schedule 10, Clause 200, Schedule 11, Clauses 201 to 204 and new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 711.25 a.m. on Tuesday 24th February Remaining proceedings on the Bill5 p.m. on Tuesday 24th February

Mr. Conway, I am sure that I speak for all members of the Committee when I say how much we are looking forward to debating the Housing Bill under your and Mr. Pike's expert chairmanship. I have not had the pleasure of serving under you in a Standing Committee before, but I have certainly with you on a Select Committee and I know that this Committee can rely on your robust and completely impartial governance of our affairs. We shall spend substantial time discussing important subjects today and in the sittings ahead. They are of great interest not only to members of the Committee, but to many outside the Room. Unfortunately, as a result of ministerial commitments, the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), cannot be with us today, but she looks forward to working with everyone. I am aware that the Committee contains a great deal of expertise and experience, and I look forward constructive and well considered discussions. Our debate about the Bill on Second Reading was of particularly high quality. Several hon. Members who have been appointed to the Committee raised many important points covering a wide range of issues. Now, we have the opportunity to debate the Bill in a more detailed and systematic way, which will put all its provisions clearly into context. As colleagues will know, the Bill was published in draft for public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny. The Government found such an exercise extremely valuable and, thanks to that process, we believe that the Bill is now in better shape. I remind the Committee that the main purpose of the Housing Bill is to create a fairer, better and more efficient housing market that is designed to protect the most vulnerable in respect of housing. It will fulfil two of the Government's manifesto commitments on licensing of houses in multiple occupation and the introduction of home information packs. It will contain much of the legislation that is needed to help to create sustainable communities, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in February last year. We believe that the Bill will make a real difference to people on the ground. Colleagues will be well aware of the various parts of the Bill, so I do not intend to explain them in detail. The resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee sets the times and dates for our discussions about the Housing Bill. We propose to meet twice daily on Tuesdays and Thursdays until Tuesday 24 February. It will be a relief to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who feared that we proposed to sit through the February recess and devote seven sittings to debating part 7, that we shall not, of course, be sitting on Tuesday 17 February and Thursday 19 February, which fall during the February recess. The order of consideration of the Bill broadly follows the order of clauses in the Bill, but there are some exceptions. I shall be happy to explain that in detail if any member of the Committee is concerned about it. We propose that schedules are considered alongside the clause that introduces them. The provisions in a schedule might relate to a particular clause, and it therefore seems appropriate to consider them together. We also think—and the Programming Sub-Committee agreed—that it is logical to take any new clauses or schedules relating to a particular part of the Bill immediately after consideration of the provisions in that part. Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): There is no need to elaborate at length on what the Minister said, but it would be remiss not to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Conway. As ever, it will be a delight to serve under your erudite and generous chairmanship as we consider an important measure. There are a number of implications to the measure, and all Committee members—as evidenced by the quality of the debate on Second Reading, to which the Minister referred—share a determination to ensure that this important legislation is as effective and fair as possible. Over the next few weeks, as we are locked not in combat but in healthy scrutiny of the Bill, we will seek to do just that. I have nothing further to say about the specific nature of the programme motion, or about the progress that we will all endeavour to ensure is made, except to note that as we progress a number of matters that are not in the Bill will doubtless emerge; they will be brought to the Committee's attention in the form of new clauses. As hon. Members will remember, that issue was raised on Second Reading and it was felt by some that aspects of the Bill touched on other matters that perhaps should have been included, but are not. I hope that we will have ample opportunity under your stewardship, Mr. Conway, and that of Mr. Pike, to explore those issues as we progress and as they relate to particular aspects of the Bill, on the basis suggested in the Programming Sub-Committee. No doubt, such new clauses will be tabled in due course and we can enjoy a broad, efficient and effective debate on them, albeit one that is constrained by the proper consideration of such matters. Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD): I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Conway. I recall serving under your chairmanship on various Finance Bills and you know how joyous it is to serve on the Standing Committee on a Finance Bill when the Government are keen to agree to Opposition amendments. Hopefully, the Government will continue to be keen to consider what the Opposition have to say about this Bill, particularly given that during many of the discussions prior to this sitting there was an air of constructive criticism and a willingness to see whether we could improve the legislation. Many of us agree with much of the Bill. The Minister will be aware that both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have concerns about part 5, but that that aside, there is a lot of common ground and a willingness to ensure that the Bill is implemented effectively and that the right balance is struck. Also, the draft Bill procedure has shown the Government's ability to listen to the Select Committee and the people who gave evidence to it, and to improve legislation before it reaches Standing Committee. That means that there is greater agreement with, and understanding of, the Government's intentions. I put on record our thanks to the Minister for Housing and Planning for his briefing. I understand that he extended the same courtesy to Conservative Front Benchers. The chance to talk to him and to civil servants in the initial stages improved our understanding of the Government's position. I think that these proceedings will be constructive, not least because of the way in which the hon. Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark) goes about his work as a Whip. There will probably be a lot of passion in the Committee, not least during this morning's sittings, because week in, week out in our advice surgeries housing is the one issue that people raise that we sometimes feel unable to deal with. That is especially true of London Members, but those with constituencies outside the capital probably encounter the same thing. We feel frustrated about legislative constraints and we want more action to be taken. The Bill will, I hope, enable progress to be made. People will be pleased about that, but they will also want to persuade the Government about issues such as overcrowding, as we will hear later today. The programme motion was improved by the Programming Sub-Committee, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) for his suggestion that we start a little later. I think that the 9.10 am start came as a result of that, which pleases one who commutes from Surbiton every day on South West Trains. The Minister for Housing and Planning rightly pointed out that I was under a misapprehension about the recess. I was volunteering to come in, possibly by myself, for extra sittings on part 7. I am pleased to say that my diary has already been rearranged. I am glad that the motion allows for a lot of debate on new clauses. It emerged on Second Reading, and will continue to do so as the Bill progresses and understanding increases, that the Government may find that there is room to add new elements that strengthen the Bill and that ensure higher standards in the private rented sector and in the housing stock overall. So I welcome the motion, Mr. Conway, and I look forward to constructive procedures.

We shall spend substantial time discussing important subjects today and in the sittings ahead.

They are of great interest not only to members of the Committee, but to many outside the Room. Unfortunately, as a result of ministerial commitments, the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), cannot be with us today, but she looks forward to working with everyone. I am aware that the Committee contains a great deal of expertise and experience, and I look forward constructive and well considered discussions.

Our debate about the Bill on Second Reading was of particularly high quality. Several hon. Members who have been appointed to the Committee raised many important points covering a wide range of issues. Now, we have the opportunity to debate the Bill in a more detailed and systematic way, which will put all its provisions clearly into context. As colleagues will know, the Bill was published in draft for public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny. The Government found such an exercise extremely valuable and, thanks to that process, we believe that the Bill is now in better shape.

I remind the Committee that the main purpose of the Housing Bill is to create a fairer, better and more efficient housing market that is designed to protect the most vulnerable in respect of housing. It will fulfil two of the Government's manifesto commitments on licensing of houses in multiple occupation and the introduction of home information packs. It will contain much of the legislation that is needed to help to create sustainable communities, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in February last year. We believe that the Bill will make a real difference to people on the ground. Colleagues will be well aware of the various parts of the Bill, so I do not intend to explain them in detail.

The resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee sets the times and dates for our discussions about the Housing Bill. We propose to meet twice daily on Tuesdays and Thursdays until Tuesday 24 February. It will be a relief to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who feared that we proposed to sit through the February recess and devote seven sittings to debating part 7, that we shall not, of course, be sitting on Tuesday 17 February and Thursday 19 February, which fall during the February recess.

The order of consideration of the Bill broadly follows the order of clauses in the Bill, but there are some exceptions. I shall be happy to explain that in detail if any member of the Committee is concerned about it. We propose that schedules are considered alongside the clause that introduces them. The provisions in a schedule might relate to a particular clause, and it therefore seems appropriate to consider them together. We also think—and the Programming Sub-Committee agreed—that it is logical to take any new clauses or schedules relating to a particular part of the Bill immediately after consideration of the provisions in that part.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

There is no need to elaborate at length on what the Minister said, but it would be remiss not to

welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Conway. As ever, it will be a delight to serve under your erudite and generous chairmanship as we consider an important measure.

There are a number of implications to the measure, and all Committee members—as evidenced by the quality of the debate on Second Reading, to which the Minister referred—share a determination to ensure that this important legislation is as effective and fair as possible. Over the next few weeks, as we are locked not in combat but in healthy scrutiny of the Bill, we will seek to do just that.

I have nothing further to say about the specific nature of the programme motion, or about the progress that we will all endeavour to ensure is made, except to note that as we progress a number of matters that are not in the Bill will doubtless emerge; they will be brought to the Committee's attention in the form of new clauses. As hon. Members will remember, that issue was raised on Second Reading and it was felt by some that aspects of the Bill touched on other matters that perhaps should have been included, but are not. I hope that we will have ample opportunity under your stewardship, Mr. Conway, and that of Mr. Pike, to explore those issues as we progress and as they relate to particular aspects of the Bill, on the basis suggested in the Programming Sub-Committee. No doubt, such new clauses will be tabled in due course and we can enjoy a broad, efficient and effective debate on them, albeit one that is constrained by the proper consideration of such matters.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Conway. I recall serving under your chairmanship on various Finance Bills and you know how joyous it is to serve on the Standing Committee on a Finance Bill when the Government are keen to agree to Opposition amendments. Hopefully, the Government will continue to be keen to consider what the Opposition have to say about this Bill, particularly given that during many of the discussions prior to this sitting there was an air of constructive criticism and a willingness to see whether we could improve the legislation.

Many of us agree with much of the Bill. The Minister will be aware that both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have concerns about part 5, but that that aside, there is a lot of common ground and a willingness to ensure that the Bill is implemented effectively and that the right balance is struck. Also, the draft Bill procedure has shown the Government's ability to listen to the Select Committee and the people who gave evidence to it, and to improve legislation before it reaches Standing Committee. That means that there is greater agreement with, and understanding of, the Government's intentions.

I put on record our thanks to the Minister for Housing and Planning for his briefing. I understand that he extended the same courtesy to Conservative Front Benchers. The chance to talk to him and to civil servants in the initial stages improved our understanding of the Government's position. I think

that these proceedings will be constructive, not least because of the way in which the hon. Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark) goes about his work as a Whip.

There will probably be a lot of passion in the Committee, not least during this morning's sittings, because week in, week out in our advice surgeries housing is the one issue that people raise that we sometimes feel unable to deal with. That is especially true of London Members, but those with constituencies outside the capital probably encounter the same thing. We feel frustrated about legislative constraints and we want more action to be taken. The Bill will, I hope, enable progress to be made. People will be pleased about that, but they will also want to persuade the Government about issues such as overcrowding, as we will hear later today.

The programme motion was improved by the Programming Sub-Committee, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) for his suggestion that we start a little later. I think that the 9.10 am start came as a result of that, which pleases one who commutes from Surbiton every day on South West Trains. The Minister for Housing and Planning rightly pointed out that I was under a misapprehension about the recess. I was volunteering to come in, possibly by myself, for extra sittings on part 7. I am pleased to say that my diary has already been rearranged.

I am glad that the motion allows for a lot of debate on new clauses. It emerged on Second Reading, and will continue to do so as the Bill progresses and understanding increases, that the Government may find that there is room to add new elements that strengthen the Bill and that ensure higher standards in the private rented sector and in the housing stock overall. So I welcome the motion, Mr. Conway, and I look forward to constructive procedures.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I start by declaring an interest: I am the director of a family property company. I hope that Committee members will bear that in mind.

We have 18 sittings, which will allow adequate time to deal with the important issues in the Bill. I look forward to dealing with the Minister for Housing and Planning, who, like me, is a veteran of various transport Bills. He has been generous with the information—so generous that it is difficult to read it all. I hope that further information is made available when it is required. That would be helpful to genuine and sensible debate. We all want to get this legislation right.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

Mr. Conway, I join other hon. Members in welcoming you and Mr. Pike as Chairmen of the Committee. This is the first time that I have had the pleasure of serving under your chairmanship. I fear that it will not be the last.

By any account, the Bill is comprehensive, complex and crucial. It is worth recalling that this massive Bill consists of 204 clauses, which cover 141 pages, and 11 schedules, which cover 56 pages. It comes in seven parts, and although every part is important, five are of

major importance. I will not extend exaggeration by saying that those five parts should be five separate Bills. However, part 1, which deals with housing conditions, has the following chapter headings: ''Housing standards'', ''Hazard awareness notices'' and so on, ''Demolition orders and clearance areas'' and ''Enforcement action''. Each is important.

The heading of part 2 is ''The licensing of houses in multiple occupation'', which is crucial. In part 3, there is ''Selective licensing of other residential accommodation''. Skipping part 4, part 5 has ''Home information packs'', a radically new concept that will affect every residence in our country. Part 6 chapter headings include ''Secure tenancies'', which involves changes to the right to buy; that could be controversial and important.

We need plenty of time to consider such matters. It would be wrong to guess how long we will need. Perhaps matters that we did not think would come to the fore will do so during our debates. For how long will the Committee be able to meet if necessary? There are 18 sittings over nine days. I came here at five to 9—I thought that we started then; I now realise that we are to meet at 10 past 9. So, if we finish at 11.25 am, the Committee will sit for two and a quarter hours in the morning, instead of two and a half hours. So be it—I am not complaining about a quarter hour. However, when can we finish in the evenings?

We have to deal with clauses 1 to 16 by 11.25 am on Thursday 22 January. Our consideration of the next group of clauses, beginning with clause 44, will have to conclude by 6.55 pm on Tuesday 27 January. Presumably, we are to adjourn at 6.55 pm on that day because there may be a Division at 7 o'clock downstairs, but can we come back after the 7 o'clock vote, and is the time that we can sit until open-ended?

The programme motion states:

''during proceedings on the Housing Bill the Standing Committee shall meet when the House is sitting on Tuesdays and Thursdays''.

So if the House rises at half-past 7 because of the Adjournment debate that traditionally follows the main business, may we sit until half-past 7, or whenever the Adjournment debate ends? May we sit even beyond that time, if we have the agreement of the Whips? I do not know, and it would be extremely helpful to find out, not only because unforeseen issues may surface, but because Opposition Members can plan better if we know until precisely what time we can sit on each day.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Does he think that, if the House rises, it might interfere with our proceedings?

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

There are two points. First, I genuinely do not know whether we can continue to sit after the House has adjourned. If we cannot, can we sit until it adjourns—that is, during the half hour or so of the Adjournment debate? I have quite forgotten my second point; I shall try to think of it. What I really want to stress is that it would be helpful to have clear guidance on when we can sit, so that we can plan our deliberations accordingly.

Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con) rose—

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Before I call Mr. Selous, it might be helpful to Sir Sydney and the Committee if I covered a couple of the technical points that Sir Sydney so reasonably raises. The time of the sittings of the House is set by motion of the House, so it is not at the disposal of the Chairman or the Committee to vary that provision, unless the House changes the terms of the motion and the date on which we have to conclude. What time we finish consideration in Committee within the time scale set by the House is a matter for the Committee. Although the timings are set out in the amendment paper, the motion to adjourn would still have to be moved by a Government Whip.

If the Committee, by the mysterious means of which we know, decided that it wished to go on sitting for a longer period, the motion to adjourn would have be moved at a later time. In other words, it is possible for the Committee to vote and resume sitting, if that is its wish. The start time is not in the gift of the Committee, but the Adjournment time still is.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

On a point of order, Mr. Conway. I am most grateful for that; it is extremely helpful. I have one remaining point and if I raise it now, it will save considerable time. Let us consider, for example, the grouping of

''Clauses 66 to 85 and new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 3'',

which has to be concluded by 5.55 pm on Thursday 29 January. Does that mean that, on conclusion of deliberation on those clauses, we can move immediately that same evening to clauses 86 to 105, or is it anticipated that the Committee will be adjourned when, or if, there is a Division at 5.55 pm? It would be helpful to know that, too.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

As I understand it—and I will be guided by the excellent Clerk if I am giving the Committee the wrong steer—it would indeed be possible to move on to the next group if that was the wish of the Committee. It might also help the Committee if I point out that although the Tuesday afternoon sitting appears to be quite long, I am sure that both Peter Pike and I have it in mind to have a tea and comfort break during the long haul.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests: I derive some rental income from a property in London.

I shall respond briefly to the remarks that the Minister for Housing and Planning made about the sustainable communities plan. He will have heard my comments on the issue on Second Reading. My constituency is right in the heart of one of the sustainable communities plan areas. His colleague Lord Rooker, the former Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr, will visit my constituency next Tuesday. I shall be with him—with my Front Benchers' permission, of course—as he assesses the impact of the plan on my locality.

My local housing authority, South Bedfordshire district council, already had in place substantial plans to meet the housing needs of the residents of my

constituency. The sustainable communities plan for South Bedfordshire proposes to double the number of houses in my constituency—an area that is already extremely congested and one where local employment is nowhere near sufficient to meet the needs of the local population—

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Order. I should like to help the hon. Gentleman by saying that I am sure that he will remind the Committee that he is making these points in the context of the programme motion. He may feel that he needs more time to consider them, but his contribution must relate to the timing we are discussing.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

Thank you, Mr. Conway. I am certainly guided by that. I just responded briefly, in the light of the programming motion that we are discussing, to the comments that the Minister made earlier.

Mr. Conway, on an administrative matter, might we have your permission to remove our jackets while we are here? I should also like to point out that my name has been misspelled on the list of members of the Committee available in the Room. I would like that to be corrected.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

We will ensure that the hon. Gentleman's name is spelled correctly. I have no objection to hon. Members removing their jackets or other garments, within reason.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I had noticed that the name of the hon. Gentleman, the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) had been rendered as ''Sealous'', which reflects the general approach to which we have become accustomed in his brief but distinguished membership of this House. I can assure him that on his visit to Bedfordshire next week, Lord Rooker will take a positive, constructive approach to local issues.

I am grateful for what have been, on the whole, positive observations from Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) expressed concern about a possible lack of time in the Committee. I do not believe that sentiment is universally shared by members of the Committee, but let me reassure him, as you said yourself, Mr. Conway, that the Government intend to be flexible: we will take as much time as we need. The hon. Gentleman, along with the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) were members of what I began to describe as the ''Planning Bill repertory company''. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet will remember that in the course of our proceedings on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, in response to complaints about time from the Opposition, I engaged in a rhetorical flourish in which I said: ''Well, we will go on till midnight if that is what is required.'' Unfortunately, I was taken at my word, so I intend to make no such commitments along those lines in this Committee.

We have tried to balance the timetabling of the Committee in the light of the complexity and contentiousness of its contents. We have allowed

extra time, as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings pointed out, if required for additional concerns. I hope that reflects the transparent, relatively open-minded and constructive approach that Ministers intend to bring to the Committee.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I rise to correct an omission. I made the comment that the Minister mentioned, but I did not thank him for the time that he spent with members of this Committee in advance of its meeting to ensure that we were well briefed on these complex, as he describes them—some might say byzantine—matters. His help has been well received by all. I hope that it signals the way in which we will proceed during our consideration of the Bill. I just wanted to put that on the record, as I had not done so in my opening remarks. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Housing Bill the Standing Committee shall meet when the House is sitting on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 9.10 a.m. and 2.30 p.m;

(2) 18 sittings in all shall be allotted to the consideration of the Bill by the Committee;

TABLE

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I have a couple of arrangements to deal with before we consider the first group of amendments. First, I should like to remind

colleagues that bleepers and phones should not sound during our consideration. If any colleague wishes to use the Committee Room during the parliamentary recess, the Clerk and Serjeant at Arms would be delighted to help them. We will do our best to accommodate Members.

Secondly, copies of the money resolution are available in the Room. Thirdly, I remind colleagues that adequate notice of amendments should be given. As a general rule, my fellow Chairman, Mr. Pike, and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that may be reached during the afternoon sitting.

Clause 1 - New system for assessing housing conditions and enforcing housing standards

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I beg to move amendment No. 171, in

clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out 'and'.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 214, in

clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—

', and

Amendment No. 172, in

clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert

', and

Amendment No. 215, in

clause 1, page 3, line 3, at end insert—

'(9) The appropriate national authority will by regulations:

(a) introduce minimum physical standards for HMOs; and

(b) introduce measures to regulate and enforce such standards'.

New clause 17—Overcrowding standards—

'(1) For section 324 of the Housing Act 1985 (in this Act referred to as ''the 1985 Act'') there is substituted

''324 Definition of overcrowding

A dwelling is overcrowded for the purposes of this Part when the number of persons sleeping in the dwelling is such as to contravene—

(a) the standard specified in section 325 ('the bedroom standard'), or

(b) the standard specified in section 326 ('the space standard'),''.

(2) For section 325 of the 1985 Act there is substituted—

''325 The bedroom standard

(1) The bedroom standard is contravened when the number of bedrooms available to the occupiers of a dwelling is less than the number of bedrooms allocated to them in aggregate in accordance with the formula set out below in subsection (4).

(2) No account shall be taken for the purposes of the bedroom standard of a room having a floor area of less than 50 square feet.

(3) A room is available as a bedroom if it is of a type normally used in the locality as a bedroom.

(4) For the purposes of the bedroom standard a separate bedroom shall be allocated to the following persons—

(a) a person living together with another as husband and wife (whether that other person is of the same sex or the opposite sex);

(b) a person aged 21 years or more;

(d) two persons (whether of the same sex or not) aged less than 10 years;

(e) two persons of the same sex where one person is aged between 10 years and 20 years and the other is aged less than 10 years;

(f) any person aged under 21 years in any case where he or she cannot be paired with another occupier of the dwelling so as to fall within (c), (d) or (e) above.''

(3) For section 326 of the 1985 Act there is substituted—

''326 The space standard

(1) The space standard is contravened when the number of persons sleeping in a dwelling is in excess of the permitted number, having regard to the floor area of the rooms of the dwelling available as bedrooms.

(2) For this purpose—

(a) a child under the aged of five shall be reckoned as half a unit and a person aged five or over shall be reckoned as one unit, and

(b) a room is available as a bedroom if it is of a type normally used in the locality as a bedroom.

(3) The permitted number of persons in relation to a dwelling is the aggregate for all such rooms in the dwelling of the numbers specified in column 2 of the Table set out below in relation to each room of the floor area specified in column 1; and no account shall be taken for the purposes of the space standard of a room having a floor area of less than 50 square feet.

TABLE Floor area of room Number of persons 110 sq.ft. or more 2 90 sq.ft. or more but less than 110 sq.ft. 1.5 70 sq.ft. or more but less than 90 sq.ft. 1 50 sq.ft. or more but less than 70 sq.ft. 0.5 Floor area of room Number of persons 110 sq.ft. or more 2 90 sq.ft. or more but less than 110 sq.ft. 1.5 70 sq.ft. or more but less than 90 sq.ft. 1 50 sq.ft. or more but less than 70 sq.ft. 0.5

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce a proposal in a probing amendment on an important matter. However, before I start to describe it, I should like to draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. I write articles for Housing Today and receive some support on research from Shelter. The gang of four—my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), for Edmonton (Mr. Love) and I—have been pushing the issue for some years. Some passion will be expressed this morning, and possibly later in our deliberations,

because this is the single most important matter in housing policy.

I supported the Bill on Second Reading last week, and I support it again this morning. I want the balance to be redressed. There is so much in the Bill that is important in helping us tackle serious problems in the delivery of housing standards, particularly in the private rented sector, for houses in multiple occupation and elsewhere. However, there is a glaring omission. We do not have the piece of work that would help us tackle the problem that afflicts social housing and some tenants renting privately, primarily in the south of England. It must be recognised that in housing policy, and in other areas including social policy, we have to deal with—[Interruption.] I love that fire alarm test announcement; it has no meaning whatever.

We must address the fact that two separate approaches are needed on housing policy. The real and serious problems of low demand, and the abuses that that can lead to—how some private landlords deal with their stock—must be dealt with. However, although there are some exceptions, that problem does not apply to much of the south of England, because it is plagued by high demand. This group of amendments, including the new clause, seeks to redress that balance.

In recognition of that fact, which I accept the Government have acknowledged, we recently set a target to end the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for families with children. I was thrilled by the setting of that ambitious target, which we are on the way to meeting. However, that has a perverse consequence—a problem that runs parallel to it. Families in secure tenancies are living in conditions as bad as, and in many cases worse than, those experienced by people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I say ''perverse'' because for admirable, sensible reasons, local authorities are trying to prioritise moving families out of bed-and-breakfast and temporary accommodation because that costs money. It does not really cost any money to maintain families in highly overcrowded conditions. Priority is given to moving people from temporary accommodation.

The housing health and safety rating system—which will be subjected to some tweaking during the Committee's deliberations—is a step forward. One of the things that it is designed to do is tackle hazards arising from overcrowding and lack of space, but it will be used only alongside the existing statutory overcrowding standards. As was discussed on Second Reading, that continues to be based on—and to reinforce the use of—unacceptable and out-of-date standards dating from the 1930s and even the 19th century.

I seek to replace the definition of overcrowding in section 324 of the Housing Act 1985 with one that includes ''the bedroom standard'' in addition to ''the space standard'', and to do away with the room standard proposals, with which I and other hon. Members have difficulty. I want the statutory definition to be brought up to date by introducing the new bedroom standard based on the measure of

the English house condition survey and by updating the space standards.

The proposals contain many technical considerations, and I would like them be adopted at some stage. However, we have rehearsed the relevant arguments so I do not intend to discuss the long list of proposals in detail—to debate what could be introduced to determine measurement and usable space. A key component is the removal of the expectation that a child up to the age of 10 is counted only as half a unit and, in so doing, allowing us also to update some of the gender expectations. Under current bedroom standards, it is theoretically possible for an unlimited number of children of the same sex to share a bedroom. In practice, it is completely unrealistic to allow that to continue, as every parent knows.

By retaining the status quo—by not agreeing to my proposals, or something similar that the Government might adopt at a later stage—we are continuing to reinforce a chronic problem that is serious and worsening. I have spent 14 years in public life as a local councillor and a Member of Parliament, and it is clear that the problem is spiralling out of control in much of London and the south-east.

A mere glance at the statistics of the English house condition survey show the extent of the problem that we face in London. Even on the current inadequate statistical measurement, 178,000 households are at least one bedroom below the acceptable standard. That is 6 per cent. of the total housing stock, which is double the UK average, and three times more than that which prevails in most boroughs—in the east midlands, for example. The figure for the north-east is only 1 per cent., but I am aware that it has other housing problems and I am delighted that that is not one of them.

The problem is serious, worsening and concentrated in the south-east. As has been said, if the status quo is maintained, it will be possible for there to be chronic overcrowding by any acceptable modern standard and for the ludicrously high hurdle in existing legislation still not to be cleared. I and other hon. Members have been told of many relevant cases. A family of six with twins of two, a seven-year-old and a baby count only as three and a half units for the bedroom standard, which is regarded as completely acceptable and not at all overcrowded under existing legislation.

In addition to the difficulty of clearing that hurdle, the lack of clarity in legislation leads to inconsistent determinations and policies. One of my local authorities, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, does not prioritise chronically overcrowded families via a homelessness-at-home policy, but the other one—Westminster city council, which also covers the constituency of another Committee member—does so. Therefore, of two families with identical circumstances of overcrowding, living 200 yd from each other in the same inner-city community, only one might be regarded as statutorily overcrowded and be removed, or placed on the waiting list to be removed, because their accommodation was not regarded as suitable to occupy.

In one case—and I am still working with the local authority to deal with it—that I used as an illustration in the debate, I was told, although I have not had an original letter from Kensington and Chelsea council confirming it, that a family of seven living in a two-bedroom flat were initially advised to create a bedroom in the space under their stairs. That lack of clarity about which rooms or areas in a dwelling can legally be used to provide a sleeping space results in inconsistent decisions and advice. Vulnerable families are losing out as a result.

In addition, families are falling through the net because of the way in which decisions are implemented. Since the debate, during last Friday's advice surgery, a family of a mother, father and three-year-old child came to me with a letter from Queen's Park Sure Start programme; Sure Start was worried about the child's safety. I discovered that 12 people—at least three households—were sharing a two-bedroom flat. There were 10 adults and two babies. When I pursued the matter, Westminster City council told me that it had already accepted a duty to rehouse the couple and child. However, there is another child in the flat whom we do not even know about.

The council accepted that duty because it regards the property as unreasonable to occupy. It has placed the family on the housing waiting list, but they are at No. 241. On current standards, they will be in their present accommodation for anything up to another year. I do not understand how anyone could interpret even the provisions of the 1985 Act as meaning that it is reasonable for 12 people to share a two-bedroom property.

It is essential that there is some clarity and modernity in our approach to the process. Of course local authorities are concerned about the implications for their housing stock but, as I have said, the core problem is a decline in the number of properties available for letting over a long period. The problem is not particularly to do with household change and an increasing number of applications. It is in no way acceptable for us to trap people in the conditions that I have mentioned, sometimes for years, simply because there are competing pressures on the housing stock and to avoid raising expectations.

We did not take that attitude to bed and breakfast, which is a comparable example. We did not say, ''There are a number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and that is utterly appalling, but there are many other competing demands on the local authority's housing stock, so we will not act.'' We were right to take the decision, and it would be equally right to translate that approach to stock.

There are a number of knock-on effects that we should also try to untangle, including the ludicrous situation whereby, because registered social landlords are setting their own policies on not overcrowding stock, they turn down nominations from overcrowded households and give priority to less overcrowded households. On a number of occasions, I have found

that families of five have been turned down for a two-bedroom nomination because technically they need three-bedroom accommodation. As there are no three-bedroom nominations available, and they have to wait five years for one, we are trapping the most needy families in the most intense deprivation. Until we untangle some of those problems, and send out the message that we want a modern approach to the problem, those difficulties will continue.

Now is the time. We have to seize the opportunity offered by the Bill to prevent a serious problem from becoming a great deal worse. If we do not, we will be failing hundreds of thousands of households in London and the south-east, and a few in other parts of the country—whose opportunities we have vigorously embraced on every other count through our anti-poverty strategy, the decent homes initiative, and so forth—and we will not have an opportunity in the next decade to pass legislation, to enact it, to work out the implications and to start delivering.

This is a probing amendment, and I will not press it to a Division, but for the sake of those families to whom I have referred I ask the Government to take full cognisance of our request, and to return with a commitment to legislate along these lines in the Bill.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I shall speak to amendments Nos. 214 and 215. They are probing amendments, and I will address them only briefly because I wish to return to the central thrust of this debate, which is overcrowding. The amendments are related to that subject, but their scope is wider than it. The intention behind them is to understand the Government's thinking on the interrelationship between the new rating system and the old standards, as they apply to HMOs. Although we will debate HMOs at length later, it is important to understand the matter in the context of this debate.

The 1985 Act imposed a number of standards that HMOs must meet. They were different—more absolute—than those in the new rating system. Some of those trying to understand the new ratings are concerned that, by entirely removing the existing system and becoming totally dependent on the new one, there might be reduced protection. I am sure that the Government do not want that to be the case.

The Bill repeals sections 345 to 400 of the 1985 Act. Their standards will no longer apply to HMOs—for them, the physical standards mentioned in the amendments will cease to exist. We are concerned that, as environmental officers learn to deal with the new system, mistakes might be made: HMOs might be allowed to continue operating when they would not have been allowed to do so under the old system.

There is a particular concern with regard to fire standards, on which I would like the Minister to comment. Groups such as Shelter are concerned that the old standards in the 1985 Act were effective in improving the overall fire prevention methods and investment in HMOs and that—although I do not wish the absolute flaw of the 1985 Act to go into the new system—such a positive development might be reduced.

To return to the main point of the debate, the Committee owes the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) and the other members of the gang of four a debt of gratitude because they have been persistent and effective parliamentary champions of housing reform. My only regret is that the hon. Lady said that her amendments were probing. It would be nice to test the Government a little more. However, I am sure that she has her own tactics.

We must recognise the significance of the campaign and the amendments. Overcrowding is not just about poor housing conditions; it has an effect on the health, education and behaviour of families and young children. There is nothing worse for the health of a young family than dangerous overcrowding: when a family member gets an infection, it can readily spread. Other consequences such as those to do with mental health are less immediately obvious. The health of the nation is hugely damaged when a large number of our people are in overcrowded accommodation.

Education is another significant area. The Government have been piloting and promoting after-school clubs and so on where children can do their homework. However, many children have to return to flats and homes where they cannot concentrate because their younger siblings or parents are watching television, having a meal, or going about their normal activities, and there is no place for the student to sit and study.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Is not the ability of any family member to get a decent night's sleep in overcrowded conditions often severely limited? There is much evidence that when young people's sleep is interrupted, their ability to concentrate and learn at school is seriously damaged. Not just homework but performance at school suffers while living in such conditions.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

My hon. Friend makes a good point that adds to what I was saying. If parents are not able to get a good night's sleep, they could underperform at work. Thus, the economy is less productive. That might be dangerous in certain occupations when a person needs to concentrate and has responsibility for others' safety. There are many reasons why the problem is real.

The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North mentioned her constituency. I should like to cite an example from mine: the local authority told a young couple with a teenager in a two-bedroom property that their new twins could sleep in the galley kitchen. I was shocked by that response—but it was legal. I was concerned for the safety and health of those young children, as was the health visitor. That is where the new standards—the room standard in particular—fail so dramatically.

Not a surgery goes by without an overcrowding issue being raised. The hon. Lady represents an inner-London constituency and mine is in the suburbs. Overcrowding is rife, but we are not able to do much about it, partly because of the lack of affordable housing. Let us be clear that the Bill is not an overall solution. Laws do not solve such problems, and they

will not build any new homes. However, the Bill will put pressure on the Government, the civil service and local authorities to recognise that there is a problem. Moreover, it will develop the housing debate.

The hon. Lady is correct. The Government have targeted bed-and-breakfast accommodation and have begun to make significant progress, which adds to the strength of her case. If we had a modern definition of overcrowding, we would be able to show to the press and public that there is a housing crisis even though they do not realise it. Housing is often so low on the political agenda because the press are interested in how fast house prices are rising rather than overcrowding. If there were a new, modern definition that led to stories in the press and debates in the media every year, the public would understand that there is a major housing crisis and that people are living in unacceptable conditions. That would develop consensus in the country on securing the housing investment that we need and making the issue a priority. That is why the Bill is so important. Although it may not build an extra house, it will move the debate forward.

My brief from Shelter says that the legislation has not changed since 1935. It is interesting to note the assurances given by the then Minister for Health, Sir Hilton Young, who brought in those 1935 standards. He said:

''The standard laid down need not be regarded as the ultimate ideal to which we should work. It is one upon which it is possible to begin to get this reform under way.''—[Official Report, 30 January 1935; Vol. 297, c. 364.]

Even in 1935 they realised that the standard was hardly an ideal solution. Some 70 years later we ought to be doing better.

The Minister for Housing and Planning has had much sympathy with the case, as have many Ministers who have held his position in recent years. He has to box in a clever and sophisticated way to answer the campaign and not commit the Government too far. However, I want him to go beyond his brief today, to take a risk and to undertake to return to the Committee after more work has been done. I accept that the Bill covers some overcrowding issues, but many people believe that it does not go far enough. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North says it all.

The room space standards under the 1985 Act are ineffective. They lead to some outrageous situations, as the hon. Lady and I have described. It really is time that the Government used their majority and belief in such matters to do something. I forget who said on Second Reading that the Bill was good but that it could be historic. If the Government took action on overcrowding, they would elevate the Bill to that status—of which the Minister, the Government, the Labour party and this Parliament could be proud.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

This is an interesting and important beginning to our consideration of the Bill. It brings us to the heart of the debate that will no doubt continue throughout our discussions on the first part, which concerns defining fitness and reaching a judgment on

the various factors that affect the condition of housing. The Bill sets out an ambitious set of changes in respect of redefining fitness, and members of the Committee will be familiar with the draft guidance, which has been made available to us, about the new system. The notable factor is that it introduces into our consideration of housing conditions a range of issues that are associated with risk and the balance between the condition of housing and the activity of the occupants. Essentially, housing fitness in terms of risk is a marriage between the condition of housing and the nature and behaviour—the habit—of the occupants.

I shall not go through the guidance in comprehensive detail now, but it deals with crowding and space. Overcrowding has already been mentioned. Indeed, the psychological factors in the draft guidance such as space, security, light and noise are a broad range of considerations that I am sure all members of the Committee will acknowledge. Crowding and space are defined specifically as a type of hazard. The category includes

''all hazards threatening health that are associated with lack of space and crowding.''

I have no wish to do the Minister's job for him, but I have no doubt that he will refer to such matters because they go some way to satisfy some of the points that have been made so far in Committee—although I am not saying that they go the whole way. I said that because I thought that the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North was about to intervene and I wanted to save her the trouble of doing so.

The draft guidance goes considerably further. Indeed, after reading it, one is almost frightened to go home. It refers to burns, shocks, fires, scalds and difficulties with falls that are associated with stairs and steps, which most of us have in our houses. It covers falls on the level, too, because we can fall over without climbing steps. The guidance then deals with serious matters that are associated with a range of measures that could be introduced to prevent different accidents. It seems ambitious to expand how we assess fitness by defining a series of risks that bring together considerations about housing conditions and considerations about occupants. That is an important step to take and one with which the Opposition have considerable sympathy. We could hardly not have sympathy, given that we are mindful that poor accommodation contributes substantially to other social problems, particularly poor health.

The British Medical Association report, ''Housing and health: building for the future''—which I know that hon. Members will be intimately familiar with—makes it quite clear that

''research findings are generally consistent and a link between poor housing and ill health is widely accepted.''

Studies have established the risk to physical and mental health from specific factors associated with poor-quality housing. The BMA points out that those are associated not only with existing ill health, but with increasing ill health. It lists a series of housing conditions: cold, damp, mould, indoor pollutants and

infestation, and overcrowding. It says that overcrowding creates an increased risk of infection, respiratory disease and reduced stature. I am not saying that the stature of any member of this Committee could be reduced, but I am saying that overcrowding is an important element in adding to problems associated with bad housing, and that the link between it and poor health is a serious consideration.

The BMA report considers fitness standards and states:

''The standards used to assess dwelling fitness have been criticised for focusing more on the existence of a hazard rather than the consequences for the occupant.''

That statement is associated with the comments that we have already heard, and I suspect that it will be with those that we hear when we consider part 1. Linking the existence of a hazard to the consequences is fundamental. When we debate a coming group of amendments, I will discuss ability and disability. I do not want to anticipate that by going into too much detail about it. However, it is particularly relevant to the consideration of how we assess the relationship of occupants to those matters.

Overcrowding is clearly a factor in fitness, in the quality of life that people enjoy and in contributing to possible problems of ill health. Indeed, the BMA makes specific reference to overcrowding on page 32 of its report. It states:

''Overcrowding is more prevalent in low-income households. It is associated with a range of diseases, including tuberculosis and respiratory infection, and mental ill health. Adult mortality patterns are associated with household overcrowding''.

It also mentions other factors such as the

''lack of a fixed hot water supply in childhood.''

Crowding in childhood can lead to a series of concerns, including

''adult rates of stomach cancer.''

It is clear that the impact of overcrowding in early life has significant repercussions for people as they grow older. I have some sympathy with the comments that have been made and I await the Minister's response. In his defence, as I have said, reference is made to those matters in the new guidance. The question for the Committee is whether that reference is sufficient to point people—those who have responsibility for enforcing the standards—in the right direction, or whether we need something more, as earlier contributors suggested. I give the Minister this first and important opportunity to persuade me that he is right and that previous speakers are misguided.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

The Committee owes a debt to the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North for raising this vital issue, and to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton for his amendment. I am interested to know whether he feels that the two proposals for a new paragraph (c) to clause 1(1) tally with each other. I think that both hon. Members are talking about the same thing. Perhaps it is appropriate to declare what I call my reverse financial interest. Since the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill was discussed in

Committee, I have retired from my position as fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute. I have also taken the liberty of retiring from the Royal Institute of British Architects, although I still have to pay that organisation money to be retired. That is money going in the wrong direction for me, but in the right direction for the purposes of the Register of Members' Interests. I am also an honorary fellow of the Faculty of Building, an honorary fellow of the Association of Building Engineers and an honorary member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Again, not a penny has passed between us.

It is interesting that the first amendment comes from a Labour Back Bencher; I hope that that sets a happy precedent. You and I were Government Whips some years ago, Mr. Conway. Our policy was to discourage our colleagues from saying anything.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

Surely not.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

My hon. Friend is quite right—of course not.

The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North underlines the Bill's importance to all our constituents, whatever part of the United Kingdom we represent. No fewer than five Committee members represent seats in the Greater London area. This issue may be important in Regent's Park and Kensington, North, but it is also important in my constituency.

As I am sure other hon. Members have found, constituents frequently give patent examples of overcrowding, but due to pressure on accommodation, particularly in London—I cannot speak for other parts of the United Kingdom—housing authorities apply only the letter of the law, but sadly not its spirit. I am at one with the hon. Members for Regent's Park and Kensington, North and for Kingston and Surbiton on that issue. Successive Governments have not tackled the problem properly—I willingly concede that. We have a real opportunity to deal with the matter, which is of such importance.

The hon. Lady has obviously done her homework. I have studied with care not only her two amendments, but her new clause 17, which goes into detail on bedroom and space standards. She should be applauded for putting them in a table, on which we can comment and which will give guidance.

I always have to remind myself of the constituency name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings. There are some exotic, if not esoteric, constituency names represented on this Committee. Perhaps this is the time to say that Chipping Barnet is actually in London, and does not nestle easily in the Cotswolds.

This is a vital issue, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

Many of the problems described also relate to my own constituents. On a personal note, as one who needs a 7 ft bed to be comfortable at night, I have much sympathy with some of the issues mentioned by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North.

In any question about the allocation of scarce resources, it is important to consider both the supply and the demand sides. Will the Minister comment on his Department's projections on and analysis of housing demand in London and the south-east, particularly in relation to people allocated work permits, and to the 10 new European Union accession countries, whose citizens will have the right to come to the UK from 1 May this year? Will he comment briefly on the effects of that on housing and overcrowding in London and the south-east?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire for that question, which I will reflect on and attempt to deal with—in due course, if not immediately. We have had a genuinely passionate and well-informed debate.

I should like to respond, in as much detail and as sympathetically as I can, to the powerful arguments that have been made about overcrowding. However, with your indulgence and that of the Committee, Mr. Conway, I will preface my response to the debate on overcrowding by giving an overview of part 1. Far be it from me to criticise the procedures of the House, but one of the disadvantages of the way in which we conduct our business is that, very often, we become immediately engrossed in the detail of amendments to clauses, and to that extent we tend to lose the bigger picture. So let me, with the agreement of the Committee, set out the big picture as far as part 1 is concerned, responding to the broader issues raised by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. I want to portray, for the benefit of colleagues, I hope, the overall concept of the Bill—a concept often described by psychologists as the ''gestalt'' or, as the late, great Beveridge put it, the ''tour d'horizon''.

Part 1 provides for the introduction of a new system for assessing housing conditions. It provides for such a system to be used in the enforcement of housing standards. The new system, known as the housing health and safety rating system, replaces the fitness standard which, although it is currently in the Housing Act 1985, dates back 80 years. In 1998 and 2001 we consulted on proposals to move away from the fitness standard. Both of those exercises revealed wide support for reform. I agree with the view, expressed by one of my hon. Friends on Second Reading, that the fitness standard really should have been overhauled before now.

Part 1 contains important and, dare I say it, landmark measures that pave the way for a new way of looking at housing conditions. Under the current fitness standard a local authority assesses a property against nine criteria. If it fails on one of those criteria, the local authority officer has to question whether the property is reasonably suitable for occupation as a result of that failure. If it is not, it is unfit. Once a local authority has decided whether a property is unfit, it has a duty to deal with it in the most appropriate way.

The current system pays some attention to the needs of the occupier of a property, but does not do so in a very objective or transparent way. That is why we are

changing to the housing health and safety rating system. We believe that it will bring about a major improvement in the methodology for assessing conditions in dwellings, flats and houses in multiple occupation, described in the Bill as ''residential premises''. The system will focus on the impact of these conditions on the health and safety of the occupants of the premises by enabling the systematic assessment of hazards within the dwelling. In other words, it is a process of identifying the defect, assessing the potential risk and then relating that risk to the occupiers of the premises. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is absolutely right in his analysis of the purposes of the housing health and safety rating system. There are a considerable number of factors to be taken into account—29 in all, instead of the nine currently addressed under the fitness standard. The new system will enable local authorities to prioritise the action needed on housing in their area.

Quite simply, the finding of unfitness under the current standard triggers a duty for the local authority to take enforcement action. So will a finding of a severe hazard under the new rating system trigger a duty to act? There are two key differences between the current and new systems. The first is that the new system is person-centred rather than building-centred. In the immortal phrase, it concerns not the defect, but the effect of the defect. The second difference is that the process of deciding whether action needs to be taken will be more systematic and transparent under the new system. We are placing health and safety considerations at the forefront of our drive to improve housing conditions for the most vulnerable people.

After providing for the details of the rating system to be specified, part 1 goes on to set out the enforcement powers and duties that local authorities will apply. Those are adapted from the existing provisions of the 1985 Act, which has been referred to frequently. As the Committee progresses through part 1, I shall show that the powers give authorities considerable flexibility to tailor the action that they take to the circumstances that they find, with particular reference to the impact of a dwelling's conditions on the people who live there.

In the context of local authorities' powers, it is perhaps appropriate to mention that the Government have responded to the Select Committee's recommendation that local authorities should be able to take emergency action. Such action would deal with serious hazards that present an imminent risk of serious harm to the occupiers of residential premises. I tabled amendments that will have that effect and I shall move them when appropriate. They will complete the menu of options that the Bill will give to authorities, ranging from emergency action at one end of the scale to a simple notification that hazard exists at the other.

Naturally, I look forward to discussing the system and the enforcement powers in more detail as the Committee progresses through part 1. Members of the Committee will be aware that, to assist discussion, I

made available two important documents just before Christmas. The first is a draft of the so-called version 2 of the housing health and safety rating system; the other is draft enforcement guidance, which gives local authorities information and advice about the duties and powers to be conferred upon them by the Bill. I hope that further copies of those documents will be available to the Committee for the convenience of its members.

I hope that I have been sufficiently brief, and have not strained the patience of Committee members, in putting part 1 in context for the purposes of the current debate and our ensuing discussions and debates.

Amendments Nos. 214 and 215 were moved by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. Hon. Members will be aware that the housing health and safety rating system and the enforcement provisions in part 1 apply to all housing stock, including HMOs. Therefore, to establish separate physical standards for certain kinds of housing stock would have the effect of removing HMOs from the purview of the rating system or, alternatively, would set up the possibility of conflicts between the hazard assessment process in part 1 and predetermined physical standards.

I fully recognise that there are important ways in which HMOs are not like other stock; that is precisely why the Government undertook to introduce a licensing system for HMOs and why, indeed, part 2 exists. There is nothing in the physical characteristics of HMOs that makes the health and safety rating system an unsuitable means of assessing their physical condition.

I do not want to protract this part of the proceedings unduly, and it is my positive desire to describe, in due course and in some detail, how the system will work. We will certainly come to the fire issues, because an amendment has been tabled on that subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), and that will shortly be the occasion of a debate. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) is a great authority on those matters, and I do not intend to evade debate on those issues. However, in fairness we recognise that the process of inspecting an HMO under the new system will be a bit more complex than assessing an ordinary house, because individual living spaces, and the shared facilities that are attributable to them, must be looked at.

This is not the moment to abandon all the work and consultation, and the agreement secured on the new system. Instead, we must recognise that the additional points on houses in multiple occupation relate to their use and management, rather than their physical characteristics, which might be shared across the entire housing stock. In part 2 we have, therefore, taken care to ensure that the health and safety rating system and HMO licensing will work together effectively. Under the licensing regime in part 2, and possibly through management orders under part 4, the local authority is required to pursue a persistent failure of management to comply with the requirements of part 1.

Clause 44 places a duty on local authorities to ensure that all licensable HMOs are assessed under part 1 as soon as is reasonably practicable.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

It seems to me that the Minister was suggesting, appropriately, that this system might be reviewed regularly. The change that he described in his opening remarks on making the contextual issues clear is profound. Was he saying that due to the complexity of that change, and the interrelationship between the complex factors contributing to fitness—both the physical factors and the human factors—it will be reviewed regularly with a view to developing an informed opinion about how those factors interrelate and the balance of their importance?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

It is a bit of a cod answer, which Governments always produce, to say that we keep all our proposals, policies and practices under review. Of course we are aware that this is a new, more complex system and that a degree of training will be required for environmental health officers. The start-up kit will have to be issued. We shall keep all those matters under review.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The right hon. Gentleman is not going to get away with that. Let me put my question more clearly. I was being excessively polite. Given the complexity and newness of the change, and the uncertainties about matters such as overcrowding, will the Minister commit himself to returning to the House in, say, a year's time? Then he can give a review of how the change has been implemented and progressed, and how local authorities are finding that the balance between the various factors works in practice. If he were prepared to provide such a review, the whole House would, on the basis of that evidence, be able to consider the matter much more carefully.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I notice that the hon. Gentleman is toughening up his act. However, I am unable to make the commitment to return to the House with such a review, if only because I suspect that it would create a degree of uncertainty among local authorities, which must make commitments in that regard, and practitioners. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have made the requirement for the stock survey to be conducted as soon as practicable. We are regularly in touch with local authorities about their experiences of such matters, and we will continue to be so during the implementation of the new system. I give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that if the Government find that the system is not working as effectively as we desire, we will seriously re-examine it. If it does not work as satisfactorily as we hoped and there are major problems with it, my experience is that local authorities will not be backward in coming forward to raise their concerns. In broad terms, I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we will not lose sight of the matter. I dare say that, in our long and fruitful relationship as opposite numbers in housing matters, the hon. Gentleman will certainly want to come back to me on such matters several years into the future. I look forward to that.

Let me conclude my observations by saying that we believe that one of the great advantages of the new

system will be that it offers a much more targeted approach to risks in households. The risk assessment approach of the system will provide the opportunity for local authorities to ensure that defects, dangers and risks in their housing stock are dealt with in a prioritised fashion.

Forgive me for having taken a long time to explain such issues, but I hope that I have not been unhelpful. I now come to overcrowding, an issue that dominated the early part of our debate. It goes without saying that I recognise and appreciate the profound interest that my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North has taken in the problem of overcrowding. I pay tribute to her, to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, who is not in Committee this morning, and to the other two members of the gang of four, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North referred, for persistence in pursuing such matters. We have had formal meetings on the matter and some informal exchanges about it. I note that my hon. Friend's amendments to clause 1 were intended to increase the statutory overcrowding standards in part X of the 1985 Act up to the level of the higher bedroom standard, which has been the basis for the statistical measure of overcrowding for several years.

My hon. Friend and I have similar constituencies. Mine has the distinctly unesoteric title of Streatham, but other than that they are both inner-London constituencies. They are similar in their social composition and diversity and in the character of their housing stock. Other hon. Members who represent London constituencies have already referred to such issues. The fact is that overcrowding, while not unique to London, is very much concentrated in the capital city. We reckon that about 60 per cent. of overcrowding is located in London.

I absolutely understand from where my hon. Friend and the hon. Members for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) and for Kingston and Surbiton are coming. The hundreds of advice surgeries that I have held as a Member of Parliament and the thousands of constituents whom I have met have shown that overcrowding has been a consistent worry. Frankly, and for what it is worth, it is a matter of great personal anguish to me to hear of the circumstances in which some of my constituents are forced to live. In particular, my heart goes out to those good, decent families who, although they always paid their rent up to date, moved into their flat when there was one child in the family, have since had one or two more, and are now forced to live in an unsatisfactory situation.

There are cases of parents sleeping apart, and sometimes of living rooms and other parts of the household being used as bedrooms. On occasion, even the kitchen may be used as a place to sleep. That is unacceptable and we need to do something about that, but there are really difficult issues of prioritisation and resources. I want to refer to them, at least briefly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North and I are familiar with each other's position on the issues. I know that she is aware of the

Government's anxieties about the effect of bringing in a step change in the overcrowding standards. Indeed, so are the other members of the gang of four, my hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Bow and for Edmonton. They, of course, introduced a Bill on the subject last Session and are familiar with my responses to them in discussions on those issues.

I have to make it clear that the Government do not defend the current overcrowding standards to the letter; those standards are obviously out of date. However, we need to consider what purpose would be served by raising the standards right now, and what the effect would be. Do we want an effect, or are we simply making a symbolic gesture? The issue is one of resources and priorities. Local authorities already have a pretty good idea of the degree of overcrowding in their area, but they have to balance the needs of overcrowded people against those of the homeless and those in poor temporary accommodation whose needs are more urgent. If we raise the standards, we sharpen the issue of priorities for local authorities. Even with current resources, the number of more affordable lettings means that local authorities have to tackle the worst cases first.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

But does my right hon. Friend accept that there are a number of cases—one of which I alluded to—in which, because of the way that current policy setting, regulations and law interact, families with lower priority get rehousing advantages before those with higher priority? That is one reason why I would like greater clarity in legislation.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I do accept what my hon. Friend says, and I undertake to look at that precise issue so that, although those circumstances might not operate in very many cases, a clear injustice can be resolved. Obviously, I cannot commit to resolving the issue, but I undertake to consider it in greater detail.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

Further to the comment made by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, I am sure that the Minister is not misleading the Committee, but homeless people would not be badly affected if the amendment were made. On my understanding, the amendment would in no way disadvantage homeless people. It is trying to ensure that overcrowding is seen as a housing issue. It would not necessarily lead to a change in the way that local housing authorities decided between people in housing need; it would simply mean that incidents were recorded so that we could use that information to guide housing policy. Unless I have misunderstood, the amendment would not force the Government to change their current prioritisation of housing investment, but it might inform the Government's debate about those issues in future.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am sorry if I appear to have misled the hon. Gentleman. But let me put it like this: the amendment will not simply be a source of information, but will lay an obligation on authorities to act. My recollection is that the effect of the ten-minute Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton would have been to bring something of the order of 500,000 homes into the ambit of the

overcrowding standards. It is an issue that I will explain to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton.

With regard to housing issues, the Government are currently committing very large amounts of resources, first, to the decent homes programme, where we seek to remedy the £19 billion backlog we inherited in 1997 in the modernisation of council housing stock. We have set a target of 2010 for achieving the decent homes standard, which will benefit 2.5 million homes. We have already achieved that standard for 1 million homes. We are committing substantial resources to the decent homes programme, a central priority for local authorities.

Secondly, the Government are committing very large amounts of resources to dealing with the problem of homelessness. In that regard, I was grateful for the supportive comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. Lay a further obligation on local authorities with regard to overcrowding, and you jeopardise the first two very important commitments and targets. I say to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton that it is a matter of resource. We all desire to deal with the issue of overcrowding, but to achieve the end, one has to will the means. This Government have, particularly since the last general election, estimated by common consent our investment in housing across the board. However, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that there are limits. That is certainly the source of our misgivings about acceding to the more ambitious, updated targets with regard to overcrowding.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

On that point, would my right hon. Friend not accept that the overwhelming majority of those families are already registered for transfers on local authority RSL waiting lists? We have not materialised new people or new demand. As the law currently stands it means that local authorities, depending on the level of pressure in their area, are not able to—or choose not to—prioritise those families who, out of necessity, might have children or adults sleeping in a kitchen or living room. It is a question of asking, within the current profile of priorities, how we can ensure that conditions that are clearly unacceptable to modern standards and modern eyes are reflected in the priority setting of local authorities. Obviously more resources would be welcome but, within existing priority setting, those households are not getting the priority that they need.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I take the point made my hon. Friend, but I put it to her that there is still the issue of resource, which cannot be lightly marginalised. It is our perception that to introduce these new standards would lay a requirement on local authorities that would further divert them from existing priorities. However, I am sure that this debate will continue. Let me make some encouraging remarks.

This debate takes place specifically in the context of the health and safety rating system. As has been pointed out, overcrowding may be severe enough to be hazardous in health and safety terms. That is where the health and safety rating system comes in. It will not solve the problem, but it will bring overcrowding into the mainstream of matters that authorities need to

consider when looking at the condition of properties and the hazards that they contain. The housing health and safety rating system will give authorities a tool to help them judge circumstances and say, ''This person's RSL flat is more damaging to their health than another's bed and breakfast''.

We have considered these arguments in this Committee and other contexts and my hon. Friend and I will continue to debate them. Both she and the Committee will be aware that this matter gives the Government some genuine anxiety. None the less, I am prepared to consider whether it is possible to devise an approach to overcrowding that allows some incremental improvement over a period. I undertake to pursue that possibility as soon as I can, in time for it to be considered in Committee. With that, I invite my hon. Friend to ask leave to withdraw her amendment.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I will try to be brief. Hon. Members have contributed their experiences of this problem. I thank them for their encouragement. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton was right to flag up what I did not; that was partly because I have rehearsed these arguments many times. There are real implications, including cost implications, for mental health, family well-being and the educational achievement of families in such conditions. Those need to be seen in the round.

The hon. Member for Deepings—[Hon. Members: ''South Holland and The Deepings.''] The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the hazard rating and the regulations moved us forward in recognising the impact of overcrowding as a hazard. I am not being churlish. The health and safety ratings are a step in the right direction. I appreciate that they can, and potentially will, have a positive impact on how local authorities proceed. The bottom line is this: in terms of overcrowding, the Bill—if enacted—would still leave the 1935 legislation as the foundation and bedrock of local authorities' decision making. That still means that at a time when there are pressures on priorities, few families will be able to get through the eye of that needle and out of an intolerable situation. Many tens of thousands of families, particularly in London and the south-east, will be living in intolerable conditions just below that threshold. If that were discussed with people and presented to them, and if they looked at some of our examples and illustrations, and those which my right hon. Friend the Minister has encountered in his constituency, they would regard that as unacceptable.

It is right to say that the matter receives little media attention. If the popular press and television flagged up examples of homelessness as they did so well in the 1960s, and as they have with other issues, there would be a public outcry. If veal calves were kept in the conditions in which some of our homeless families and people in need of housing are kept, middle Britain would be out there demonstrating. Nevertheless, that is not so. The regulations in the Bill as it stands are an improvement but, owing to the fact that the 1935 legislation is currently the fall-back position, they are not good enough.

Paddington Churches Housing Association, which is a major provider in my constituency, provides a warning to tenants on their rent books—it was the only thing written there—saying, ''If you knowingly overcrowd your property, you are in breach of your tenancy and can be convicted.'' That is ludicrous, yet is almost a consequence of the law. If that law is not changed, landlords could theoretically prosecute tenants, because the overcrowding is their fault, and throw them out of their house. That is illogical nonsense. Of course, that does not happen. However, it is mad for that to stay on the statute book.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his closing remarks; they provided a germ of encouragement. I intend to withdraw the amendment. However, like Arnie the terminator, I'll be back. I tabled an amendment to what became the Homelessness Act 2002; I have subsequently received encouraging remarks from two Ministers. I am grateful, and I know that the difficulties are genuine. However, that was years ago; the situation is out there and it is bad. Of course there are problems of priorities and competing pressures, but the problem does not go away if we deny it. We must research and tackle that problem, and create a framework that allows us to prioritise it. Those families are not going away. They are still there, in desperate need.

Yes, the Bill will not build new houses and supply is critical. However, if there is no framework legislation, we have no facts and figures and the Government do not give priority to the problem, we will not be able to make the case for change, whether that relates to extra supply and new resources—we have some of those but we need more—or to the structure of the housing stock. It is not right that in London it is almost impossible to create the conditions for building properties with more than two bedrooms. That is where part of the problem lies. Creating that new framework would give us the opportunity to make those arguments on RSL policies, on the type of stock that we build and on new resources.

I intend to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. I am grateful for the Minister's encouragement and look forward to returning to the discussion, led by the Government, later in the Bill's passage.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

If the hon. Lady is to return like Arnie the terminator, perhaps she should enter the race to be Mayor of London.

The Minister gave a helpful reply, which should be warmly greeted on both sides of the Committee. No doubt we shall consider those exact words—''the incremental changes''—during the Bill's passage. We look forward to seeing the fruits of the Minister's considerations before the Bill is enacted.

The Minister admits that the definitions are outdated. He gave a clear indication that he wants to see them reviewed, and that is welcome. His only caveat related to resources. We all understand that. There are never any blank cheques from any party or politician—that would be a nonsense. However, when a Minister talks like that, I sometimes wonder whether he has been briefed by a civil servant who has said, ''Minister, if you agree to that, you will have press

publicity and your wonderful work on decent home standards and other investments will be forgotten by the media, who will focus on the other issue. The media will not praise the Government for their great works.'' I say to the Minister that if the Government have a good story to tell, they will be able to tell it. If a Minister makes progress towards decent home standards, the Government will be able to flag that up.

Surely it is in the interests of the Minister, his constituents and the Government that the measure should go forward and that there should be media reporting. The Minister's constituents need the media to be given the information so that those campaigns can happen. When the decent home standard is reached, the housing issue does not go away. One cannot say, ''We have met the decent home standard, and there is no longer a problem with housing.'' There will still be a housing problem, as the Minister knows.

I am not sure that the Minister has accepted the argument, but he has given some positive signals. If he makes the incremental changes, he will do his constituents and the issue a power of good. He should not fear the odd Sunday Times scoop that claims that overcrowding is worse than ever expected. The Government will then be able to take credit and ensure that, should they ever lose power, housing and overcrowding will remain on the agenda and bubble up to the surface, so that they are tackled properly not only in the immediate future, but in decades to come.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move amendment No. 3, in

clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out 'and' and insert—

'(aa) the new emergency measures contained in Chapter 2A (emergency remedial action and emergency prohibition orders), and'.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments Nos. 4 to 7.

Government amendment No. 10.

Amendment No. 221, in

clause 8, page 6, line 39, at end add—

'(d) their function under this Part in responding to emergency or urgent situations.'.

Government amendments Nos. 11 to 15.

Government amendment No. 20.

Government new clause 4—Emergency remedial action.

Government new clause 5—Notice of emergency remedial action.

Government new clause 6—Recovery of expenses of taking emergency remedial action.

Government new clause 7—Emergency prohibition orders.

Government new clause 8—Contents of emergency prohibition orders.

Government new clause 9—Appeals relating to emergency measures.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

As I have said, clause 1 provides for the introduction of a new system for assessing housing conditions and provides for that system to be used in the enforcement of housing standards. The new system, which is to be known as the housing health and safety rating system, replaces the fitness standard in section 604 of the Housing Act 1985. That section is repealed by the Bill.

This is an important clause. As I said in my introductory remarks, we believe that the new system introduced by clause 1 will bring about a major improvement in the methodology of assessing conditions in residential premises.

Subsection (2) provides for the new system to operate

''by reference to the existence of category 1 or category 2 hazards on residential premises''.

Those are the categories into which hazards will be placed by the local housing authority as a result of its inspection and assessment. That assessment will be based on the risk to the actual or potential occupier of the premises who is most vulnerable to the hazard.

Subsection (3) sets out the courses of action available to a local authority for dealing with a hazard. There are five options: to serve an improvement notice, requiring work to be carried out to the property; to make a prohibition order preventing the property, or part of it, from being used; to serve a hazard awareness notice, simply notifying that a hazard exists but not requiring any action; to make a demolition order; and to declare a clearance area. Subsections (4) to (8) define or interpret some of the terms used in part 1. The purpose of those provisions is to ensure that part 1 applies to all residential premises.

I now turn to the Government amendments in the group. We have taken note of the recommendation of the Select Committee that the Bill should enable local authorities to take emergency action to deal with category 1 hazards that present an imminent risk of serious harm to the occupiers of residential premises. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 add emergency measures—emergency remedial action and emergency prohibition orders—to the options in subsection (3), to which I have just referred. Amendment No. 5 provides that these emergency measures are courses of action that may be available to a local authority in relation to a category 1 hazard. Amendment No. 6 is a drafting amendment. Amendment No. 7 provides that, where an authority takes remedial action to deal with an emergency situation followed by an improvement notice in order to secure the complete removal of the hazard in somewhat slower time, those two steps are to be regarded as a single course of action. The same principle will apply in the case of an emergency prohibition order followed by what may informally be described as an ordinary prohibition order. The purpose of these provisions is to enable the authority to take the two steps simultaneously.

Amendment No. 10 enables the appropriate national authority to give guidance under clause 8 to

local authorities about the use of these emergency measures. Amendments Nos. 11 to 15 provide that the powers of local authorities to recover certain expenses incurred in taking enforcement action under part 1 extend to any such expenses incurred in taking emergency remedial action or making an emergency prohibition order.

I turn to the new clauses. It may help the Committee if I describe their purpose and effect in logical sequence rather than in numerical order. New clause 4 enables a local authority, if it is satisfied that a category 1 hazard exists on residential premises that are not the subject of an interim or final management order in force under part 4, and if it is further satisfied that the hazard involves an imminent risk of serious harm to the health or safety of any of the occupants of those or any other residential properties, to enter the premises at any time to take emergency remedial action. New clause 7 enables a local authority, subject to the same conditions, to make an emergency prohibition order to prohibit the use of all or part of the residential premises.

New clauses 5 and 8 set out the mandatory contents of an emergency remedial action notice and an emergency prohibition order. Each must specify, in relation to each hazard, details of the nature of the hazard, the deficiency that gives rise to the hazard and the residential premises in which it exists. Emergency remedial action notices must specify the action taken—or to be taken—and the date on which the action was, or is to be, started. Emergency prohibition orders must specify the premises in relation to which prohibitions are imposed and any remedial action that the authority consider would, if taken, result in its revoking the order. Remedial action notices and emergency prohibition orders must contain information about the right of appeal against the action, and the period within which an appeal may be made. Those emergency provisions enable a local authority to take immediate action and provide that, if an emergency remedial action or emergency prohibition order is appealed against under new clause 9, the appeal does not delay or affect the taking of the action by the local authority, or the prohibition.

Finally on the new clauses, new clause 6 applies certain provisions of schedule 3, which sets out circumstances in which authorities may recover expenses, to the recovery of expenses in taking emergency remedial action and making emergency prohibition orders.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I warmly welcome the introduction of emergency measures. It is clear that the Government have, once again, been responsive to the results of consultation. I was anxious to know how it is envisaged that such measures will be triggered quickly enough to have effect. All I can see in the Bill is that, in order to trigger them, there needs to be a local authority inspection. The only way of obtaining that is through the annual review or through an official complaint through a justice of the peace or a parish council—neither of which is particularly speedy.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

We will have the opportunity to discuss complaints in due course. I understand my hon. and learned Friend's misgiving about the character of official complaints and their sources—I asked one or two questions about that. The continued presence of the reference to JPs and to parish and community councils is in response to Select Committee recommendations. We were not necessarily minded to continue that format.

Nevertheless, let me reassure my hon. and learned Friend by pointing out that complaints are not restricted to official complainants. Members of Parliament can register a complaint. However, in practice, they will be sent to a local authority by the individuals concerned. All experience suggests that local authorities and environmental health officers are, generally speaking, very responsive to such complaints. In my experience as a Member of Parliament, I have never had a complaint about a failure to respond to a complaint. However, I have heard complaints that perhaps the environmental health officer was not sufficiently sympathetic.

The thrust of my remarks is that the complaint may be extended from any source. We would certainly expect there to be an immediate response, particularly to a complaint about a life-threatening situation. As my hon. and learned Friend will know from her legal background, we cannot write into legislation a guarantee that the local authority will respond, but we will expect it to do so none the less. Once a complaint is registered, we will expect the environmental health officer to enter the premises—we have made provision for that—and to examine the object of the complaint.

The emergency provisions allow for immediate action to be undertaken by the local authority in certain circumstances, such as if there were no other obvious responsible person in a position to carry out the necessary action. An example would be the case of the discovery of exposed live wires in a building, which would obviously be very dangerous. I suppose that the first recourse would be to check out the landlord of the premises, but if there were a problem with doing so, the local authority would move in and deal with the business itself.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that explanation, and for the prompt from the Opposition Benches about the categories of official complainant being widened—at least, they may be widened; that is the intention of a later amendment, No. 220. I do not know what his response will be to that.

I would be interested if my right hon. Friend clarified the point of having an official complaint route is if it is envisaged that an ordinary complaint will trigger the procedures that we are talking about anyway. I note that clause 4 requires an inspector to inspect if there is an official complaint, so there is that compulsion on the inspector for those who go through the official channels. However, if someone has to act quickly, there is no other way of compelling the local authority to act quickly, is there? I am puzzled about how the process is supposed to work. An official complaint is likely to be slower, but it involves some

compulsion; a complaint from an ordinary complainant—not a JP and so on—will not have any compulsion behind it. We know that sometimes problems result from ordinary people simply making their presence felt and making their impact on bureaucracy and officialdom. I have some residual concerns, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend can help me further.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

When my hon. and learned Friend asked why on earth we needed such a reference to the official complaint, my inclination was to say, ''It beats me.'' It is one of those cases where we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. The Select Committee wanted to retain that source of complaints, and we acceded to its desires.

It is not magistrates, JPs, or parish and community councils—we in London know nothing of the latter—that are the sole or most forceful source of complaint. The complaint can come from any citizen and any representative person. We expect the local authority to be responsive, especially if the complaint is described in terms that make it appear to be urgent. My hon. and learned Friend has great professional expertise in the law on such matters: if she has an idea about how we could add to the compulsion in the process, I should be genuinely interested to hear about it. Having said that, I have asked questions about this and I find that, on the whole, the experience is that a failure to respond is not a major issue. I shall have to leave her with that assurance.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

It seems to me that we need to press the Minister a little more on this matter. He has made a case for how such a complaint might be triggered, but having already told us that that would be a matter of great urgency—perhaps a life-threatening emergency—he said that it was not for him to say how local authorities will respond; some may take it casually and others will take it more seriously. It is a bit weak to tell the Committee that we cannot put any stipulation in law regarding the way in which people respond to a life-threatening emergency. Surely, we want some assurance that the complaint having been triggered—we have been diligent about how that might happen—the obligation to respond will be dealt with equally seriously.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

As I understand it, we are currently discussing the speed of the response. We should, however, be in no doubt that in the clause we are laying an obligation on local authorities to consider the condition of the housing stock throughout their locality. Under the terms that we are currently legislating for, they have an obligation to ensure that serious, sometimes critical, defects should not be present in their housing stock. If there is a complaint about such defects, the local authorities are under an obligation to respond and to take remedial action. There is no doubt that the local authority is obliged to respond. The issue that we have been trying to tease out is how—if at all—we can ensure that they respond speedily. One can only hope that if a local authority were notified that live electrical wires were exposed in a residential property and were thus a potential threat to

the occupants, they would recognise the urgency and respond appropriately. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

It does not really satisfy me. We are clear that, under these requirements, local authorities are going to review their housing stock and that if that process has been carried out thoroughly, they are likely to have a fair view of likely risks and problems. However, perhaps the stock has been reviewed and some change in circumstances and conditions takes place about which they were not aware during that review process. If they are made aware of an urgent situation and they need to respond, surely there should at least be some performance indicator for the time scale involved and the speed of that response? We have such an indication for every other public service that deals with emergencies. Are we saying that we will not have one at all in this case? Are we going to leave it purely to chance? The Minister used the word ''hope.'' Shall we leave it to our hopes and good wishes, or are we going to inject some real energy and urgency into the process?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I do not want to appear not to take seriously the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but it is not immediately apparent how one could prescribe a timetable for a response to the sort of complaint that we are discussing. I said at the beginning that I approach the Bill in an open-minded spirit and a desire to engage. If the hon. Gentleman can in due course—perhaps on Report, if not now—propose a timetable by which responses can be defined and measured, I am sure that we would look at that with considerable interest.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

The problem has been caused because the trigger mechanisms for an investigation to deal with an immediate problem or emergency are still linked to the provisions of the Bill, particularly under clause 4, relating to general inspections. Perhaps the Minister needs another new clause so that the trigger mechanism is outside that set down under clause 4. The clause is fine in itself, although we shall come to amendment No. 220 later. It sets out the trigger mechanisms for the usual inspections in the normal way, but perhaps they would not work with the new clause on emergencies.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I will have a look at the matter and if we need to add anything to the Bill, we shall consider doing so. With genuine respect to the hon. Gentleman, I would need to hear more persuasive grounds for taking such action than I have heard so far. If he wants to consider the matter further and table an amendment, we shall certainly consider it. There is ample time in which to discuss such matters in the House, and the Government are always anxious to improve their proposed legislation.

I stress to the Committee that the emergency measures will be available to authorities only when they are satisfied that there is an imminent risk of serious harm to the occupiers of residential premises. They are not intended to be used lightly, and the Select Committee did not suggest that they should be so used. They are intended to be used to tackle hazards at

the upper end of category 1—that is, those hazards that need to be tackled immediately. Examples of that might be to prohibit the use of a staircase that is so rotten that someone might fall through it at any moment or to support a wall that is in imminent danger of collapse.

As I have explained, there will be rights of appeal against the use of the powers, but the appeal will not impede or delay the necessary action. If the appeal were upheld, possible outcomes might be to require a landlord to return the premises to their original state on the grounds that the action was unnecessary or to compensate him. We have had a lengthy and useful exchange of views and I hope that my amendment will be accepted.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I have tabled amendment No. 221, although the Government's amendments go in the right direction and we welcome the fact that they listened to the advice of the Select Committee. However, some questions need to be asked. The matter is probably one that we may need to come back to in detail on Report because we are trying to get our heads around exactly how the provision will work. Part of the problem is what we consider to be an emergency. People interpret that as meaning that something needs to be done quickly. That is why I am not sure that in trying to use the existing framework, which has been well developed and has wide support, the Government have quite got it right.

I shall cite some examples. First, under new clause 4(1)(a), the Government have linked matters that would count as requiring emergency remedial action to a category 1 hazard. There could be an instance when a hazard did not fit into category 1, but still required emergency action—I know that that is unlikely, but it is possible. If category 1 hazards had been properly defined, we would expect them to capture all issues that require emergency remedial action. To be honest, I cannot think of something that would not be caught by a category 1 hazard, but what if something really is a problem and, although it is not calculated to fit into a category 1 hazard, it really requires emergency remedial action? Have the Government thought about that?

Another issue is that the structure of the rating system as I understand it has linked the need for emergency remedial action to serious harm to occupiers. New clause 4(1)(b) mentions

''serious harm to the health or safety of any of the occupiers of those or any other residential premises''.

The problem is that there might be cases in which there could be serious harm not to the occupier but to property. The Minister said when introducing the system that what was new about it was that it was person-centred. However, one could imagine serious harm requiring emergency remedial action being caused to the property. For example, the top two storeys of an HMO might be vacant, so no harm would befall occupiers; but what if that building was suffering serious immediate harm and immediate action was needed—in relation to the roof, for example? If that action was not taken immediately or very quickly, valuable housing could be lost.

We have to be quite clear about how we define serious harm and about whether the provisions refer to the occupier alone, or to the property as well. Again, that would go against the framework of the rating system as it is currently set out, but perhaps that is required for emergencies. Amendment No. 221 mentions

''responding to emergency or urgent situations.''

That begins to tease out the fact that although it is emergencies that are normally thought of as things that need to be acted on immediately, perhaps we should include matters that are urgent and require quick responses, but are not emergencies.

That brings me to my final concern, which is about new clause 9 on ''Appeals relating to emergency measures.'' Subsection (3) states that an appeal

''must be made within the period of 28 days''.

It may take a few days for the housing authority to register an emergency because of problems that we have discussed in relation to how the complaint is triggered. If there are 28 days for the landlord to appeal, and the appeal is then processed, we are looking at several weeks—possibly even a month or two—before the emergency is dealt with. The Minister needs to think about the time scale, although I know that there is a balance and one has to give some rights of appeal.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Gentleman is making a good and persuasive argument, but it would be helped by a consideration of the action that might be necessary to alleviate the immediate risk to health. The Minister suggested the example of a staircase that was in danger of collapsing, or a wall that might fall. It is likely that an appropriate course of action for the agency would be to demolish that wall, or at least to take serious structural action in respect of it, or to block off the staircase. Those are the kind of actions that would protect health, and would certainly have to be done quickly if that risk to health and well-being was to be averted.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because he made my point with a good example. The Government in responding to the Select Committee—quite rightly; we are grateful that they have done so—needed to think a little more carefully about how the requirement to address an emergency is put into legislation.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I shall try to be brief. He raised the issue of appeals and the 28 days. I remind him that action is taken and the appeal takes place simultaneously. The force of the new provisions is precisely to ensure that the emergency remedial action takes place while the appeal process is going on. There is a debate about serious harm, but I contend that there is a difference between an imminent danger of a wall collapsing on the occupant of premises and a building collapsing to the detriment of local housing.

Finally, I accept that there is sometimes a problem—to which we will return—with the borderlines between category 1 and category 2 hazards. However, I put it to the hon. Gentleman

that a category 2 hazard such as mould is evidently not as risky in terms of contributing to serious injury as are the collapsing walls, exposed live wires and faulty staircases that we have talked about. To that extent, there is a clear common-sense distinction with regard

to what justifies emergency action under the terms of the Bill.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

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

Standing Committee E

Housing Bill

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Before I start the proceedings, I assure Members—male Members, that is—that they are entitled to remove their jackets. It will save me time if they do not ask me whether they can do so in future when I am in the Chair. I am relaxed about people taking off their jackets.Clause 1 New system for assessing housing conditions and enforcing housing standards

Clause 1 - New system for assessing housing conditions and enforcing housing standards

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Government amendments Nos. 4 to 7.

Government amendment No. 10.

Amendment No. 221, in

clause 8, page 6, line 39, at end add—

'(d) their function under this Part in responding to emergency or urgent situations.'.

Government amendments Nos. 11 to 15.

Government amendment No. 20.

Government new clause 4—Emergency remedial action.

Government new clause 5—Notice of emergency remedial action.

Government new clause 6—Recovery of expenses of taking emergency remedial action.

Government new clause 7—Emergency prohibition orders.

Government new clause 8—Contents of emergency prohibition orders.

Government new clause 9—Appeals relating to emergency measures.

I believe that Mr. Davey had the Floor when the Committee adjourned this morning.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

Thank you, Mr. Pike. It is a great privilege to welcome you to the Chair, but I believe that I had sat down, and that the Minister for Housing and Planning was nearing the end of his comments—indeed, it is possible that he had sat down and that we were getting close to a decision. That is my recollection.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

And here I had hoped to hear some scintillating comment from the hon. Gentleman. I call the Minister.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Let me concur in two respects with the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). First, I, too, extend a warm welcome to you as Chairman, Mr. Pike. I have had the pleasure of serving under your expert, wise and benevolent chairmanship on many occasions. I look forward to you exercising all those wonderful qualities in our proceedings. Secondly, I concur with him that I had concluded my observations.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 4, in

clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out 'ones' and insert 'kinds of enforcement action'.—[Keith Hill.]

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

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

Several issues have not been covered under the two groups of amendments, and I would like to examine them now.

I welcome the new rating system. A lot of research and consultation has gone into it, and most outside experts and local authorities say that we are moving towards getting it right. There are some details from which we shall try to iron out the final wrinkles—we will come to them in the next and other clauses—but it is worth putting it on the record that the system is an improvement. However, there may be an argument to be made in relation to a later set of amendments on how we should introduce the version 2 guidance, because that version has not yet been piloted and tested. Overall, the experience of piloting version 1 has led to some improvements—as, of course, has the Select Committee's report.

I have a pretty fundamental question about the process for the Minister. There is a debate about adopting a numerical system that relies on calculations to produce a number, and about the extent to which that will allow environmental health officers to exercise discretion and judgment. The old system was very much judgment-based, although there were lots of guidelines and advice. In the early stages of developing the new system, the Government tried to operate a purely numerical system, but the experience of the version 1 pilot caused them to change to a system that aims to combine numerical assessments and judgments. Perhaps the Minister can say a little bit more about that on the record.

Although there are references to it in the guidance—which is great reading for people who are having problems getting to sleep at night—it would be good if the Minister clearly told those environmental health officers who are worried by the new numerical system that their judgment will decide whether something is a category 1 or a category 2 hazard. That is important, not only to assuage their concerns, but because the Minister knows that if it were just a numerical value that determined how the rating system worked, there would be a danger that legal challenges would focus on the details of the calculation.

Although the version 2 guidance notes are admirably clear, the idea that the calculation is incontestable would not stand up in court. There is a great deal of judgment within the calculations, so there would be problems pretending that it is totally scientific and numerically led. Of course, the Government have moved from a single figure to a banding system, about which we will say more during the debate on the next clause. However, even if something falls into one of the bands, it is still ultimately the judgment—not the score—that puts it there. That point must be clarified. It is important that the Minister puts that on the record, because it will be fundamental to how the system is introduced and administered.

Although we now have the version 2 guidance, I should like the Minister to make it clear that the Government are taking a flexible approach to operation. In an earlier response to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), the Minister said that it was important to show that there is certainty in the framework. I agree. However, we want flexibility within certainty. In other words, if the version 2 guidance tell us that the system is not up to snuff, and the Government have the powers under the Bill that I think they do, we should ensure that the system can be tweaked in the light of the experience of the implementation of version 2.

There are other points to be made about the system, but I shall make them in relation to other clauses. I shall focus on the principal issues arising from the shift from the old fitness standards to the new rating system. If the Minister can reassure the Committee that it is not just a calculations-based system, we should, in principle, let the clause stand part of the Bill.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I warmly welcome the introduction of the housing health and safety rating system. I am sure that most people agree that it is a big improvement on the existing housing fitness system. I particularly welcome the emphasis on safety as well as health and the introduction in more than 24 categories to which inspectors will have to pay attention of items such as lead pipes, asbestos, radiation, carbon monoxide, and so on.

Section 606 of the Housing Act 1985, which requires local authorities to submit a written report to the authority on the unfitness of properties and the potential for clearance of those properties, and requires the authority to consider the reports, will be repealed and replaced by clause 4 of this Bill, which we shall discuss later. That only requires local authority officers to inspect premises on receipt of a complaint from a justice of the peace, or a parish or community council. My right hon. Friend the Minister has already explained to a small degree how that would work.

I am mainly concerned about the costs, which are highlighted in the regulatory impact assessment of the Bill and reported on page 29 of the Library research document. It states that

''The annual total cost, in England and Wales, of works carried out''

by local authorities to meet the requirements of the new HHSRS scheme

''is estimated as approximately £260m, at 2001 prices.''

Costs under the present housing fitness arrangements are £470 million. There is a staggering difference of £210 million, with the sum decreasing from present to future. I am concerned about that, but there might be a simple explanation for it, and that is what I seek.

To put the point another way, over a 30-year period the net present value of complying with the new scheme is calculated to be £4.8 million, compared with £8.7 million for the housing fitness standards. That is a considerable difference. I hope that we will not spend a lot less on the needs of people who live in poor-standard housing.

I am sorry if I have put my right hon. Friend on the spot. I can wait for the answer to my question if he has not got it for me now. However, I am concerned about those figures.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I shall raise three issues at this juncture. First, I will say a few words about the contribution of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). He makes an important point, which was not lost on the Opposition when we were studying the documents to which he referred. We will have another opportunity to discuss the matter, as there are later amendments on issues relating to the training and resourcing of local authorities to deal with enforcement matters. However, there is an incredible quality to the savings projected in the documents, and that raises a concern, which the hon. Gentleman articulated, about whether there will be adequate resources for us to make improvements, rather than stand still—or, indeed, move in the wrong direction.

The second issue relates to the comments made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. There is a problem relating to specificity. There is a tension between having an appropriate discretion to deal with matters with sensitivity—I am sure that those responsible for enforcing the measures will want to exercise that—and having a system that is sufficiently clear that everyone understands what they have to do to enforce it, and those at the other end of process understand what is being forced upon them. In this morning's sitting the Minister for Housing and Planning talked about objectivity and transparency, but that transparency is best delivered by a system that is clear and easily understood, and in which things are well defined. The numerical system that has been proposed might satisfy those entirely proper concerns.

Although I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, having examined the matter and the relevant documents, and having received the briefing that was made available to hon. Members, I am inclined to be in favour of a clear numerical system that everyone understands and that can be applied with consistency. I say that not least because while it is important that there is discretion to take account of local circumstances, it would worry me if different local authorities dealing with the same

landlord but different houses were applying entirely different systems. Although it is important to be flexible, there is a strong case for consistency. On Second Reading, I said that it would be unacceptable if a landlord with houses in several different areas were subject to a range of different regimes. We can discuss that when we come on to later parts of the Bill on licensing and so forth.

That point also applies to fitness standards. It would be inappropriate if there were a wide range of fitness standards that are applied in different ways by different authorities. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was implying that, and he certainly was not advocating it. However, it may be the consequence of his well meaning but perhaps misplaced concerns.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

Let me be clear. I think that the numerical framework is helpful in terms of providing direction and a system that aims to be transparent and fair for different properties and different landlords. I do not think that achieves that aim, but my real concern is that if decisions were to rest simply on the numerical score, the result would be a charter for lawyers. It would also prevent the professional judgment of environment health officers on the ground from being exercised. Yes, we need the new system to ensure transparency and fairness, but ultimately we need to allow a trained professional to exercise discretion about which property is put into what band. Can the Minister reassure us about that?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am always anxious to be fair to the Liberals, despite my instinct not to be. The hon. Gentleman made a sensible point about considering the response to the evaluation of version 1, which is detailed in the consultation enforcement guidance document that is available to us. It deals specifically with the experience of local authorities in applying hazard assessments. If the hon. Gentleman remembers, the professionals who are involved in trialling such an approach expressed concerns about lacking ''confidence in scoring hazards.'' Although on the surface, that argument seems in support of the hon. Gentleman's argument, it may underline a simple lack of confidence in assessing hazards. That is a new area for some officers who will be involved in such matters. I do not underestimate the change in culture that will be required or the retraining. Furthermore, the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East referred to the resource implications.

I come now to my third point, although the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has made it more quickly. I refer to assessing how such matters bed down. We are becoming more sophisticated about the way in which we assess housing and how we judge fitness, so the changes are appropriate. To repeat what I said this morning, however, given their complexity and the trial that they will undoubtedly be put under, it is important that matters are reviewed so that, if necessary, adjustments and changes can be made.

This stand part debate gives us an opportunity to press the Minister on such matters. We want him to give us a more clear response. His first answer to my intervention was lamentable. I am glad that you were

not in the Chair to hear it, Mr. Pike. He said, ''The Government review everything.'' Crumbs, my son could have come up with that response—and he is only three. The right hon. Gentleman's second answer was slightly better than that. He said that perhaps it was appropriate to look again at such matters. He gave us a generous, but slightly woolly, assurance.

Perhaps under pressure from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton and others on his Benches who have made thoughtful comments about the clause, the right hon. Gentleman might give us a firmer undertaking than that. Given the proper spirit of good will that has underpinned our contributions to the debate and the general view in Committee that the move is helpful although testing, we might receive a formal pledge that the Government will undertake a proper review in which the matters can be discussed intelligently, and make the appropriate changes to ensure that the provisions work properly.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I shall be brief. I support what the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East said about costings. If they have not done so already, perhaps the Minister's civil servants will look at page 29 of the Library brief about respective costs. Perhaps I am being cynical, but it is difficult to believe that the new system will save money over the old system, especially when we read the complexities in the documentation that we have been given. The Committee needs to receive a few more figures on the likely compliance cost and the cost on local authorities.

We have been told that the Government have committed themselves to funding fully any new burdens, but we are not entirely sure what those burdens are. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister said that it had no firm estimate of the likely cost of administering the new system, although its regulatory impact assessment comes up with certain figures. The figures in the Library brief are quite startling. The brief sets out the cost of the proposed system as against that of the existing system, and suggests that over a period there will be savings of nearly £4 billion—presumably to landlords rather than to local authorities, although perhaps not.

It is difficult to know what is the most appropriate part of the Bill under which to mention the matter, although no doubt it will be apposite to do so when we are talking about local enforcement and some of the charges that local government will have to levy. The subject needs to be fleshed out a little more; otherwise, our friends in local government will beat me over the head with a telephone directory and say, ''You went through the whole Bill, and look at what it's going to cost Poole'' and ''You allowed the Minister to get away without giving us some decent figures on what the system will cost us.'' The reality is that we do not have enough information to make a judgment. If we are to hold the Government to funding the new burdens fully, we need more figures and information on cost and compliance cost.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Let me begin by expressing my gratitude for the broad support for the new system extended by the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton and for South Holland and The Deepings. The hon. Member

for Kingston and Surbiton asked what he described as a question about process. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings asked about the clarity of the system and the process. I absolutely agree with him about the need for consistency of application of the regime; that reflects the importance of guidelines and training.

In response to the questions about process, let me take the Committee through the procedure. Rather like Max Bygraves, I want to tell the Committee a little story. [Interruption.] I think that I have rather revealed my age with that observation. The vast majority of the Committee are far too young to recognise that name.

I ask the Committee to imagine the process by which the environmental health officer or the surveyor inspects premises. The Committee is probably clear by now that action by the representative of the local authority will be based on a three-stage consideration. First, there is the hazard rating, determined under the health and safety rating system. Secondly, there is consideration of whether the authority has a duty or power to act, which is determined by the presence of a hazard above or below a threshold prescribed by regulations—category 1 and 2 hazards. Thirdly, there is whether the judgment is the most appropriate means of dealing with the hazard, which was raised by both hon. Gentlemen.

The purpose of the assessment is not to set a standard but to generate objective information in order to determine and inform enforcement decisions. The health and safety rating system assesses—and let me slightly correct my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East, who is highly expert on the subject—29 categories of housing hazard. The system provides a rating for each hazard. It does not provide a single rating for the dwelling as a whole or, in the case of multiply occupied dwellings, for the building as a whole.

A hazard rating is expressed through a numerical score that falls into a band, and there are 10 bands. Scores in bands A to C are category 1 hazards, and in bands D to J are category 2 hazards. The thresholds between bands D and C is 1,000, or an equivalent risk of death over a year of 1:1,000. The hazards that can be assessed include the major hazards found in the home: damp, cold, radon, fire and falls. The health and safety rating system assessment is based on the risk to the potential occupant who is most vulnerable to that hazard. For example, stairs constitute a greater risk to the elderly, so that group of people is considered the most vulnerable in assessing stair hazards. The very young are susceptible to low temperatures, as are the elderly. A dwelling that is safe for both those groups, who are most vulnerable, is safe for all. The surveyor gathers the facts.

The hazard is scored using the details of any deficiencies. That requires two judgments to be made: first, on the likelihood of an occurrence that could result in harm over the next 12 months; and secondly, on the range of possible outcomes. The assessment takes account of the average likelihood of a hazard occurring in a particular type of dwelling. The range of

outcomes extends from death or serious injury to visits to the doctor for persistent but non-threatening conditions. Classes of harm are weighted.

For the benefit of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, the inspector uses his or her professional judgment to relate the circumstances that they find to the average circumstances for that type of dwelling, and to ascertain how far above or below the average are the conditions in that dwelling. The hazard score is the sum of the weightings for each class of harm, multiplied by the likelihood of an occurrence and the set of percentages showing the spread of harms. That is set out in chapter 3 of version 2 of the HHSRS guidance. In assessing the severity of a fall hazard, the surveyor will consider the steepness of the flight of stairs, whether there is a handrail and any defects to it, and whether there are other defects in the vicinity of the stairs. The inspector will consider the impact of a fall on an elderly person, and find out whether the surface is hard or giving and whether there is glass.

The courses of action that are available to authorities where they have either a duty or power to act are as follows: to serve an improvement notice, which performs a similar function to a repair notice; to make a prohibition order, which closes the whole or part of a dwelling, restricts the number of permitted occupants or suspends those types of notice; to serve a hazard awareness notice; and to make a demolition order or declare a clearance area. The hazard rating is based on the most vulnerable potential occupant. Authorities will be able to take account of the vulnerability of the actual occupant in deciding the best course of action to take to deal with the hazard. The system will ensure that all the hazards that are typically found in a house can be assessed, thereby enabling the authorities to prioritise and target the most serious hazards that it finds in the local stock. That is a proportionate response. As a consequence, landlords will not be asked to carry out unnecessary work.

Let me say a little more about judgment reports and flexibility. I should like to emphasise that the environmental health officer's assessment of the property, which will generate a score, will be based on their professional judgment of the condition. We do not accept that that approach is flawed. The population base data are provided to inform the judgments; they provide national averages for likelihoods and outcomes of a particular property type. The officer will undertake the assessment of the property based on its condition and use the data to produce a score based on his or her judgment. We do not agree that it is impossible to apply the research findings to practical decision making. The data are produced on the best evidence available.

Environmental health officers who currently, and predominantly, carry out existing fitness standards have to make judgments based on an assessment of condition. That requires an understanding of cause and effect. We are not asking them to make quantitative judgments; that is a function of the health and safety rating system scoring stage. The professional judgments should be qualitative and informed by the hazard scores. I assure the hon.

Member for Kingston and Surbiton that we are confident that an enforcement decision based on assessments made under the system can be defended in court.

I have dealt with that matter at some length—but in response to hon. Members' questions on the process. I hope that my reply has been helpful.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

The Minister was helpful. I should like to clarify whether the Government's consultants who reviewed the system, DTZ Pieda Consulting, made it clear that when evidence went to court it should be primarily descriptive rather than numeric, so that the officer would explain to the court the nature of the hazard. It is important, given Pepper v. Hart, to press the Minister. Would the court be focused on the description of the hazard provided by the officer, or should the court be more minded to take account of the numeric value that the officer had calculated?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but I have a degree of trepidation in presuming to make a judgment about the way in which the courts would respond to such an issue. I am not a legal person. However, my understanding is that it is the role of the courts to make a judgment about the reasonableness of behaviour. On this question I defer to my legal colleagues, at least on this side of the Committee Room. If they decide to intervene in my support I shall be extremely grateful; I hope that otherwise they will remain silent. That is the basis on which the court is likely to make a judgment. If I were to venture an answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, it would be upon description rather than the score that the court would make a judgment. However, that is an absolutely tentative response on my part.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I am not trying to score a debating or political point; I just want to know the answer. I understand why the Minister chooses his words very carefully. However, it is pretty important, both in this clause stand part debate and when we discuss clause 2, to be clear about what the Government intend. If more weight is given to the numerical value, we risk seeing clever barristers unpicking the calculations, looking at average population criteria and all the rest that is wrapped up in the guidance—no disrespect to barristers, such as the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird)—possibly causing local authority lawyers to go to great expense, increasing the cost of the system. It is very important that we have clarity on this issue; otherwise, we could be creating real problems in terms of implementation.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

In at least one respect I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. In due course we will table amendments that will change the judicial process, as it were, from the court system—extremely expensive, as he rightly says—to what we hope will be a more expert and cost-effective body, namely the residential property tribunal; but more of that later.

I confess that I am slightly winging it here. I shall now consider the circumstances in which the action will proceed through the judicial or quasi-judicial process. It would be about the appropriateness of the enforcement action. That action would be based on

the identification of a danger in a property. Essentially, that would be based on the culmination of the process I described earlier. The culmination of that process—of the inspector, surveyor or environmental health officer going into the property—is his or her judgment.

I believe that the court, or whatever, would make its judgment on the basis of the propriety of the description and not of the score. If I am wrong about this—although I have encouraging indications from the silent ones, to whom one hardly dare refer—I will confess my error to the hon. Gentleman and to the Committee.

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings pressed me again on the issue of review. He found my earlier response to be, in that grand parliamentary phrase, made up of weasel words. I am not sure that he will find my response now very different. I assure him that we will continue to review the system and monitor how it works out, with a view to making adjustments. In due course, it may be appropriate to add hazards to the list. However, as for a formal, proper review with a report to Parliament, no, I will not make such an undertaking at this stage. Nevertheless, I assure him that we will keep a very careful eye on the process. If changes have to be made, we will make them and report them to the House in one way or another.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East and the hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings and for Poole (Mr. Syms) raised questions of cost. While I have been describing the health and safety rating system, inspiration has winged its way to me and I am now in a position to attempt at least an answer to the question of the costs to local authorities under the new system compared with the fitness standard. I think that I am right in saying this to my hon. Friend: the costs that he quotes—from the Library note, I think—relate to the compliance costs for landlords, not to the operational costs. Compliance costs are estimated to be lower, because hazards are often inexpensive to put right. For example, a window catch or frame may be enough. We estimate that the start-up costs for authorities are between £4 million and £5 million. That is for training and the kit, which may involve IT or be paper-based. We anticipate that the ongoing costs will be about the same and we have said that we will make the appropriate allocation to local authorities as part of the local government financial settlement.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Let me be absolutely clear about the financial issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole has helpfully passed me some inspiration too—if that is the euphemism that we are to use. As I glance again at page 29 of the Library paper, I am surprised by what the Minister has said about compliance costs. The paper does say that

''the cost of complying''

with the new standards

''is calculated as £4.8bn, as compared to £8.7bn''.

It goes on to talk about the costs to local authorities. I want to get this absolutely clear. The Minister tells us that compliance with the new standards will represent

a massive saving to landlords, so the new fitness standards will be much less expensive for people to implement. That rings a few alarm bells. I do not want landlords to pay any more than they should—heaven forbid; I used to be one myself. However, we are being told that the new system will cost landlords a fraction of the cost of the old one, and I am concerned about that. Is the implication that there will be some deterioration? I think that that would be the public's view, if they were to discover these things by reading the record of the debate—which they surely will, in great detail and with real enthusiasm.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I feel that I need to respond to that, as it appears that my own Department's regulatory impact assessment is quoted in those figures.

We are not in the business of reducing the necessary investment that we expect landlords to make with regard to the condition of their properties; that goes without saying. Nevertheless—I make this point as a possible explanation for the figures, assuming that they are accurate—we have always said that the new system provides a more targeted and selective approach to dealing with hazards in building. It is important to remember that one weakness of the old fitness test standard was the fact that it required the identification of one or other of the nine defects and prescribed a series of responses but—this was the crucial difference between the old system and the new—it did not relate the hazard to the occupant of the premises. We will say a lot more about that. To that extent, the new system has a less broad-brush approach to dealing with hazard. It is more precise. It identifies the impact of a hazard on the occupant, and it might therefore produce fewer costs for landlords.

We believe that the report refers to the cost of works carried out, not to local authority costs. We think that it states what I have maintained, which is that dealing with hazards can be reasonably inexpensive. As I have said, it is our contention that the new system provides more discussion to tailor work. I am grateful for that further item of inspiration, which largely points up what I was able to work out myself.

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue, and it is incumbent on me to offer a more detailed response. I undertake to do so in due course, if the Committee will be patient.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Meaning of ''category 1 hazard'' and

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 175, in

clause 2, page 3, line 17, after second 'the', insert 'immediate'.

[R] Relevant registered interest declared.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 174, in

clause 2, page 3, line 19, at end insert—

'(1A) In calculating the seriousness of hazards, the individual level of disability shall be taken into account.'.

No. 176, in

clause 2, page 3, line 24, leave out 'the case may be' and insert

'clearly defined by the appropriate national authority'.

No. 216, in

clause 2, page 3, line 27, at end insert—

'(3A) Before laying any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall have laid before Parliament a report setting out the results of a pilot testing the latest version of the prescribed method for calculating category 1 and category 2 hazards.'.

No. 177, in

clause 2, page 3, line 31, after 'mental', insert ', physical and environmental'.

No. 184, in

clause 5, page 5, line 8, after second 'a', insert 'clearly defined'.

No. 185, in

clause 6, page 5, line 41, after '5', insert

'where the local housing authority deems a clearly defined category 1 hazard exists'.

No. 186, in

clause 7, page 6, line 17, after 'a', insert 'clearly defined'.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

We have come to clause 2 with appropriate alacrity. It happily brings us to a discussion that stems directly from the previous one. That seems logical, but it is important to rehearse the Minister's earlier point. He said that the important change under part 1 of the Bill was to make it person-centred. I prefer the description ''man-centred'', but perhaps ''person'' is the politically correct term if not the generic one. The person-centred approach marries considerations about the property with considerations about the people who occupy it. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the system should be objective and transparent. He said that those were the two great changes. On one hand, the change is to be person-centred, while on the other it is to be transparent and objective. That is a neat turn of phrase. It well summarises the intentions of the Government and that is made clear in the detailed documents that we have all studied.

The group of amendments does two things. It probes the Minister to be more specific, in the interests of transparency and objectivity, about the balance between category 1 and category 2 hazards. He has been more specific to some extent by describing the process in his useful remarks at the end of the first clause stand part debate. However, there is a need for greater clarity about the difference between a category 1 hazard and a category 2 hazard, because of the repercussions of each. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have a chance to clarify matters. Several of the amendments are designed to elicit greater clarification.

Amendment No. 175, in particular, gives us the opportunity to study in some detail the people-centred aspects of a hazard and risk assessment. I understand precisely why the Government have chosen an

approach whose essence is to base the people-centred assessment on age but, as I told the Minister before our sitting, I have certain worries about it. Such an approach has the advantage of simplicity, but there is more to it than that. It is rooted in good evidence that typically, as people grow older, they become subject to more risks. We need not study rocket science to work out that, as people become old, they often become less able. Sometimes they become less capable of dealing with various risks that are associated with housing.

Such an approach is laudable but unsatisfactory. My amendment suggests that we move from an analysis based solely on age to an analysis based on ability or disability, so that the system can be implemented with greater confidence. We can define ability and disability without a significant overlap with age. People often become less able as they become older, but that is not exclusively the case. We can define matters in a way that allows the analysis of hazard and the enforcement measures to be completed in a more targeted and effective way.

The Minister described the importance of targeting when he was defending the financial aspects of the information that has been provided to members of the Committee about as persuasively as Max Bygraves would have done in Committee. His description of the numerical analysis was a little like the Max Bygraves rendition of ''Deck of Cards'', in which the four stood for the evangelists and the three for the Trinity. I could go on, but I do not want to become too biblical. In the interests of clarity and targeting, it is important that we reach the people who are most at risk. Disabled people may not be old; old people may not be less able. The marriage between people's behaviour and habit and their culture that prevails when they are exposed to risk requires a more sensitive, targeted approach.

For example, we know that mentally disabled people are critical of the quality and appropriateness of their housing. Members of the Committee will be familiar with the parliamentary briefing on wheelchair users that we received from the John Grooms housing association. It suggested that about 40 per cent. of wheelchair users believed that the place in which they lived was inappropriate for them because it was not well adapted to their needs. We know that other disabled people are at particular risk from a range of hazards that are described in the new document. The guidance that has been provided to implement the new standards deals specifically with mental health and psychological implications of various conditions that might prevail in housing. In many ways, the guidance seems to apply outside the narrow boundary of how old someone is. Surely we can be more intelligent, more targeted and more specific in how we deal with the analysis of the types of people who are most likely to be at risk from the hazards that we define as a result of the new information.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

The current system examines a particular risk and assesses it with regard to the most vulnerable person who may come across such a risk, such as a stair problem for an elderly person or damp conditions for a young baby. Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that, in all categories of analysis, the most vulnerable person should be someone with a disability?

If so, what level of disability does he mean? However, given his use of the word ''targeted'', is he saying that, when the environment health officer examines the property occupied by a person with a disability, there should be a different way to assess the property for that occupant?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I mean the second of the two examples to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is important to focus on ability or disability. I am not using the word ''disability'' in the sense that he is assuming that I am. I am not speaking only of disabled people. I am talking about people whose ability or disability in relation to a hazard may impact on their risk. Let us consider an elderly person living in a very well adapted home—perhaps relatively modern accommodation or a bungalow without stairs with all the necessary elements put in place to ensure that the person's life is as safe and convenient as possible. That person is certainly at less risk than a young person in a very old property that, based on the criteria before us today, does not satisfy reasonable modern safety standards. That situation is borne out by the information available to the Committee as well as other information that is available to the whole House. Yet because of the way in which the Government have taken age profile as the key criterion in the people-centred aspect of their approach, that would not necessarily count for a great deal.

I want the Government to come up with a way of measuring ability or disability that allows us to target the guidance at different groups in the population that may be vulnerable. It is true that elderly people are often vulnerable, but many other groups are vulnerable too. It is important that we take account of that when implementing the new methodology. I would make the approach more effective to allow us to target better and make it easier for local authorities to enforce the new standards.

I raised that matter when we were briefed on the subject and spoke to one of the academics involved in drawing up the new guidance. The essence of the response that I received, on which the Minister may want to elucidate, was that because of the complexity of what I have described, it was necessary to pick something to define the people at greatest risk, for the purposes of simplicity and to get something on the record—to make a start, as it were. Age was the thing to choose because, as I said, there is a correlation between age and risk. My worry about that approach is that it will miss out important sections of the population and important people in different communities, so it may be too crude an instrument.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are other ways of dealing with the other disabilities, such as by providing aids, adapting properties and allocating property properly to ensure that people get the right type for them to use? Therefore it is right to confine the hazard assessment to the broad categories, based on age and the most general elements of hazard.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Yes, indeed, there are other ways of dealing with the problem. I commend to the hon. Lady the excellent document produced by McCarthy & Stone plc, ''A Better Life: Private Sheltered Housing

and Independent Living for Older People''. She may have already read it. It makes it clear that there are many other ways of dealing with the issue. Sheltered housing is an effective way of providing appropriate accommodation that, at its best, minimises hazard and reduces risk. That is because it deals with the very issues identified in the provisions, such as fire risks, electrical problems, inappropriate staircases, damp, cold and all the other things that we know are of particular concern to older people because, as I said, of their propensity to illness or to be less able.

Of course, there are other ways of dealing with the issue, but at the very heart of what we are being asked to consider and approve in Committee is the people-centred approach that the Minister identified, which the Government chose to found on a measurement that is relatively simple—one might say happily simple, or one might say sadly crude. They used the measure of age rather than a proper assessment of ability and disability that would draw in people with learning difficulties, those in other circumstances and those with a severe or chronic illness that had a real impact on their ability or disability, and therefore on their susceptibility to hazard and risks. We really need to make a proper assessment.

As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said when he asked about my argument, we are not talking about a simple suggestion that we count disabled people only, but a suggestion that we come to a better judgment on measuring ability or disability for the purposes of making the system work. That is at the heart of the group of amendments. They are designed to help, in that they in no way attempt to frustrate the Bill's intentions; indeed, they would make the measures more appropriate and effective. Nor are they designed to do anything other than what the Minister recommended, which is to enhance the objectivity and transparency of the system that the Government implement. They are not unhelpful, but vital amendments.

If we are to set off down the road of the cultural change that I described earlier, it would be as well to do so properly at the outset. If we go down the road of measuring people's ability principally on the basis of age, the danger is that we shall never move beyond that. We were told that to do so was a good and appropriate start, and that it had the advantage of clarity, but there is a real risk that we shall not re-examine the issue with a view to improving how we measure ability. Given that local government officers will have a cultural change, that we shall have all sorts of difficulties, and that there are issues to do with cost, training and implementation, we must get it right. I have principally spoken about amendment No. 175, and I believe that it, in particular, will enable us to do that.

Other amendments in the group are largely designed to tease out from the Minister a little more detail about the different types of hazard and their implications. I hope that he will do that.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I rise to move amendment No. 216—

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. You can speak to it but you cannot move it.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

Thank you, Mr. Pike. I will speak to amendment No. 216. It would prevent any regulations under proposed section (3A) being laid before Parliament until we were sure that version 2 had been properly piloted and the problems had been ironed out.

The Government have undertaken a lot of consultation and analysis in order to get us to this point. However, unfortunately, version 1 of the system was found by their own consultants and various practitioners in the field to have a number of problems. Therefore, the Government have come up with version 2; they published their unfinalised draft version of the guidance last month. That shows that we are at a relatively early stage in getting to grips with version 2. We have not tried it out in the field. We have not discovered whether some of the many practical problems that were experienced with version 1 have been solved. Although lessons have been learned from what happened to version 1 and there have been some improvements, there are still many questions to ask.

The Minister might throw back the following statement: ''We have been waiting for this for a long time, so let's get a move on.'' However, I am not asking for a long delay. By the time that the Bill passes through both Houses, receives Royal Assent and some of the regulations are in a form to be laid before the House, we could be well under way with the pilots and beginning to assess the results. In practice, the delay that I am asking for may last a few months; I am not asking for a wait of four years. If this House is to agree to the new system, it is important that it be reassured that the system can work. If version 1 had worked, I would not be as concerned. However, version 1 did not work. Therefore, we need to ensure that version 2 is practical. I am not the only person who has concerns about version 2; so do people from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and elsewhere. They and I are in favour of the basic thrust of the system. We are not trying to undermine it.

During the clause 1 stand part debate, the Committee discussed a point that is particularly relevant to some of the amendments and to clause 2(1): the issue between numerical score and judgment. Even with some of the amendments that have been proposed, we are still pushed towards taking the numerical route in clause 2.

Although the Minister's answer to the last debate was helpful, what he said—that the ultimate judgment is at the discretion and as a result of the professional expertise of the environmental officer—is not in the Bill. What will appear in due course when we consider the regulations are calculations and numerical scores. There is concern about that key part of the Government system that has not been tried. It is important that the House gets a chance to look at a report on whether it works before the regulations are implemented. That would be a good safety measure to include in the Bill.

I shall briefly talk to some of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. He makes a good point about disability. It is understandable that the groups representing people with disabilities are concerned about whether the new system can be used to deal with some of the problems experienced by disabled people. Although I understand that, I agree with the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble): there might be better ways to get a better outcome for people with disabilities than to bolt on to the system something that has not been designed for it. That is why I asked the hon. Gentleman a question on that—although I suspect that I did not make myself clear enough. Even under his version of the system, which he says will work, one chooses the most vulnerable person for the particular hazard. He wants that to be judged on the degree of ability or disability. However, the Minister is talking about the ages of young and elderly people.

The problem with going down the disabled route, however that is defined, is that there will not be all the necessary population data. We would be talking about a much smaller sample of the population than is the case with age, for which there are many people with disabilities in different parts of the spectrum. The system would have difficulty producing the consistent, transparent results that we want. To use disability for that purpose would be to destroy the system's underlying rationale and logic.

I am speaking off the top of my head—I have not thought about this properly—but I wonder whether it would be possible to modify the system for occupancy. The system would generally work as it is described in the guidance, with the most vulnerable person, whether they were elderly or young, as the potential occupant. Perhaps a different set of measurements, likelihoods and so on could be applied to the enforcement officer's consideration of a property that is occupied by someone with a disability.

I say that cautiously—I am not necessarily proposing it—because there are potential dangers. Landlords might discriminate against disabled people, so one must be careful. However, if one thinks about that idea, one sees the difficulty of using the system for purposes for which it was not designed. That brings me back to what the hon. Member for Northampton, North said. Perhaps we should tackle such problems differently. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has done the Committee a service in raising ideas that help us think round the best way to approach the subject.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I speak in support of the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings and of some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton.

On hazard and risk, as I understand it, the environmental health officer will survey a property using 29 categories, come to a judgment and measure that against the average type of dwelling in the area. The benchmark, about which the Minister has spoken, seems to be that a property fit for people who are old or very young—those categories at both ends of the

spectrum—would be safe for all. At that point, there would be a scoring mechanism and a local authority might look at a property and determine whether to take action.

To return to what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said, is it likely that if there were two fit, 20-something men in a chilly, cold property that was inappropriate for a baby, the local authority would still take action on improving it, irrespective of the fact that they can live in it? The legislation seems to leave much to the discretion of local authorities. Our discussion under clause 1 about possible savings also included talk about the discretion to decide whether to implement provisions. Would the local authority say, ''Yes, this is a very draughty, nasty flat. It would not be appropriate for a baby, but there is no particular problem for the people living in it, so we will not pursue this issue''? That is what I am trying to tease from the Minister.

Discretion will be applied at some point. Once there is a scoring system using the benchmark of the elderly, the young child or the baby, it is incumbent on the local authority to determine what action follows. Surely the real tenants rather than who the tenants could be would inform its action? Theoretically, the system should be the same for an actual or a potential tenant. In reality, however, will a local authority invest an awful lot of time trying to enforce an order against a landlord if it does not believe there to be any great risk to healthy 20-something-year-old men in a property? Surely its priority would be those who are most vulnerable?

Let us consider, say, three properties. Fit people live in property No. 1, which is draughty and cold, and there are difficulties in meeting the criteria. Fit people live in property No. 2. A very elderly person who is asthmatic and has a family with young children happens to live in property No. 3, and, if the system were working, that is where one would expect the focus to be.

I am trying to tease from the Minister how the system would operate, and at what point discretion would be used. Would there be discretion or not? It comes down to this: a landlord with a property that may be a little draughty, who does not want to spend a lot of money investing in it by installing central heating, may be tempted to say, ''I won't have a family in here with young kids, or someone very elderly, because someone may report that the property is inappropriate, the environmental health officer will come along, and I'll have to invest a lot of money in it. I'll look for someone to put in it who'll be less trouble.''

There is that risk and concern, which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton put his finger on, so we need to tease a little more from the Minister about discretion and the scoring system. How will things work in practice when the local authority sees tenants who may be fit and perfectly capable, at least for a time, of living in a property that according to the scoring method is substandard, and has to decide whether to take enforcement action?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My hon. Friend has put the case very succinctly—beyond my wildest ambitions. His point is about varying levels of vulnerability. It is true that old people and young children may be typically vulnerable, as he suggested. There are, however, many other vulnerable groups in the community, and we need an absolute assurance that they will be targeted appropriately to ensure that they are not at significant risk because the system is too crude to catch them. That is precisely what my hon. Friend suggested so cogently. If I am not mistaken, that is the essence of the debate and of our amendments on ability and disability. Perhaps we should have said ''vulnerability'' rather than ''disability.''

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

My hon. Friend is right; vulnerability is very important. I have made my point, and I hope that the Minister gets the drift of it.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I agree with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings that the hon. Member for Poole made his point extremely well. He is showing us where the balance is to be struck. If the inspector takes the actual occupant into account, there is a possibility that the landlord might never think of letting to anyone who did not fall into the category of a young, fit person. From another point of view, however, the landlord might say, ''If you are going to make me spend money to make this property fit for the most vulnerable person, even though I intend to let to young, fit, able men, I will not bother to rent out properties.'' We may see a reduction in the private rental sector. I hope that the Minister can give assurances that such decisions are fundamentally at the discretion of the environmental health officer, who can take into account the actual occupant, not just the potential occupant.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Local authorities do not have vast numbers of environmental health officers. In some local authorities there are many substandard properties, which will have to be prioritised, and the authority will inevitably prioritise for those who are most vulnerable. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the points raised.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Before I deal with the details raised by the hon. Gentlemen, let me begin by reminding the Committee of the provisions of clause 2. It provides for the components of the new system to be prescribed in regulations. Those are: first,

''the method for calculating the seriousness of hazards'';

secondly, the descriptions of hazards; thirdly, the bands into which hazards may fall depending on their seriousness; and fourthly, the numerical scores which determine the bands into which the hazards fall.

Clause 2(1) defines ''hazard'' for the purposes of part 1 as:

''any risk of harm to the health or safety of an actual or potential occupier of a dwelling or HMO which arises from a deficiency in the dwelling or HMO or in any building or land in the vicinity''.

Examples of such deficiencies are construction faults, dangerous features such as broken banisters, inadequate heating or insulation, and a lack of repair

or maintenance. Clause 2(1) also defines category 1 and 2 hazards. Category 1 hazards are those that are sufficiently serious to trigger the general duty on the local authority, as described in clause 5, to

''take the appropriate enforcement action''.

Category 2 hazards—all other hazards—are those that trigger the powers set out in clause 7, under which a local authority will have a discretionary power to take enforcement action.

The assessment of a hazard has two elements. The first is the likelihood of an occurrence resulting in harm. The second is the potential outcome of that occurrence. By virtue of clause 2(3), the regulations prescribing the method will

''take into account both the likelihood of the harm occurring and the severity of the harm if it were to occur.''

Whether a hazard is in category 1 or 2, and whether, within those categories, it falls into band A, B, C, D or E, is a matter of the judgment of the inspector based on the evidence.

I shall give an example of a fall hazard. A child may fall through a low, wide window that is defective because it has no safety catch. The likelihood of falling out is no different whether the window is on the ground or the top floor of a block of flats, but of course the likely outcome would be different. The outcome will also vary depending on the surface the child might fall on to.

Another example is of a fire hazard. The group most vulnerable to fire is people over the age of 60, but the young are also at risk. Impairment to mobility clearly increases vulnerability in the event of a fire. The most common cause of death from a fire is smoke inhalation. An inappropriately sited heater or cooker, or defective heating, might ignite clothes drying in a room if the dwelling lacks a clothes-drying area. Disrepair to walls and the presence of non-fire-resistant materials spreads the fire. The number of floors on which the fire breaks out, and the absence of fire doors and smoke alarms are also factors that the inspector will consider. The inspector will then decide whether a hazard is, for example, in band B of category 1 or band D of category 2.

I have made available to the Committee copies of the current draft of version 2 of the HHSRS guidance. The document describes the method for assessing hazards, sets out the principles of scoring the hazards and placing them in bands, and lists the 29 categories of hazard covered by the system. It also gives advice on how local authorities should operate the system, how to use judgment, what they should look out for, and what can be done on the premises to remove or reduce a hazard.

I shall now turn to the interesting speech made by the hon. Member for Poole. He asked how the system related to the occupant. I should remind him and the Committee that the health and safety rating system is about the health and safety of the occupant, not the condition of the building. It is entirely occupant-focused. The hon. Gentleman seemed to assume that in identifying the likelihood of a dangerous incident, the inspector would make a judgment based on the occupant of premises at the time. As we debate the

Bill, the fact will emerge that the inspector will be able to stipulate the condition that if the nature of the occupants changes, the enforcement procedure will be expected to kick in.

I suspect that during our debates we will hear more than once about the problems of student accommodation, and the classic example is that the risk to a house full of students is different from that likely to be incurred in a dwelling occupied by an elderly person. Let us consider the steepness of staircases for example. On the whole, students might be expected to cope better with steep staircases, and if an accident occurred, a young, able-bodied person would be able to survive it more satisfactorily than an elderly or very young person.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Will the Minister give way?

Geraldine Smith (Labour, Morecambe and Lunesdale)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I shall give way first to the hon. Gentleman, and then my hon. Friend.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister said that the system will be occupant-focused, which I understand. He then gave a pertinent example of the likely outcomes of various hazards applied to different people. The essence of my amendment is to say that although that is true on the whole—to use the Minister's words—it is not exclusively true. Other groups, including chronically sick people, disabled people and other people with permanent or temporary conditions, will be especially vulnerable, but not elderly. We need a better, more targeted approach to identify the vulnerability, which was articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I shall address issues of disability in due course, but that point was helpful. I hope that it will further help the Committee if I elaborate on occupancy, the risk to the occupant, and the discretion available to the inspector in the circumstances.

Geraldine Smith (Labour, Morecambe and Lunesdale)

I am a little concerned about the occupant focus. In Morecambe, there are a large number of flats in which live single young men who display antisocial behaviour and cause all sorts of problems. People want a better mix in those areas, as there are also older people with disabilities and families with children. Will different properties in the same area be assessed differently? Will that possibility be open simply to the interpretation of the council environmental health officer? That could cause considerable problems, with landlords challenging decisions in court. I welcome the Government's intentions—they are trying to do the right thing—but I foresee difficulties caused by the occupant focus and the discretion given to environmental health officers. In one area, different standards may apply in respect of single young men and the elderly.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

We would expect the identification of a life-threatening hazard in a property to provoke the various necessary actions. A range of enforcement actions is available to the local authority. I understand my hon. Friend's point about the possible response of landlords to inconsistency of approach, but I defend

the proposals on the grounds that there is a need for inspectors and local authorities to adopt different approaches in different cases. The threat to an elderly person arising from certain kinds of physical defects is not the same as for a younger, able-bodied person. For various reasons that I hope to mention briefly, some discretion in such situations is appropriate.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

Will my right hon. Friend clarify the dividing line between the proposals in question, which, even though they are occupant-focused, relate to a property's fitness standard and hazards, and an allocation system, which considers individual needs in detail and tries carefully to match up the person with the property? The edges of that question are slightly blurred, although it might be suitable to have clarification later, rather than now.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I shall be happy to take up that issue later and I hope that neither my hon. Friend nor I forget that we mean to have that conversation. I am slightly reluctant to follow the path of allocations now, since I am trying to keep to the central thrust of the debate.

Mr. Syms rose—

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I see the hon. Member for Poole seeking to intervene. With his permission, I should like to complete a line of thought about the need for discretion that responds to the issues that he raised about burdens on landlords.

Landlordism and the private rented sector is an interesting theme. Broadly speaking, the private rented sector is fragile, as I am sure hon. Members with greater experience of such matters than I are fully aware. Despite various efforts by a succession of Governments over the past 15 years to boost the private rented sector, on the whole there has been relatively little expansion.

It is fascinating to analyse ownership in the private rented sector. One discovers that some 15 per cent. of dwellings in the sector are owned by corporate or institutional organisations, whereas 65 per cent. are owned by individuals, and that the median ownership of properties for rent is four. The industry was recently characterised to me, vividly but quite accurately, as a cottage industry. For most people, the property that they rent out is not their main source of income but an investment that, on the whole, is run without the benefit of management agents.

In other words, the sector consists mostly of small-scale economic activity, which is important to society and the economy. We all recall the words of the Chancellor in the pre-Budget statement about the importance of the private rented sector for labour mobility, and his welcome commitment to examine the possibility of introducing real estate investment trusts. The sector is also socially important for starter housing—the first rung on the housing ladder. However, it is fragile.

For those reasons, I make no apology—a point made also by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton—for saying that the Government tread somewhat warily when considering the burdens that

we are willing to place on that sector. That is why discretionary powers need to be put into the hands of the local authority. There are some bad and irresponsible landlords, and we shall be dealing with those folk in debating later parts of the Bill, particularly when considering selective licensing and some bad examples of houses in multiple occupation. However, we need to be sensitive to the burdens that we are imposing on the sector.

A uniform, across-the-board requirement to restore every kind of defect in a property would probably have the effect described of encouraging people to be restrictive in their choice of tenants or to get out of the industry altogether. I hope that I have explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) why we are adopting that approach.

Geraldine Smith (Labour, Morecambe and Lunesdale)

I still have the concern that landlords who own seven or eight houses in my area might rent some houses to families with children, others to people with physical disabilities or mental health problems, and another to a group of single young men. That is the make-up of housing in certain parts of my constituency. Such landlords would find it hard to understand why different standards applied to each house. The danger, if the matter is open to discretion, is that housing officers may decide to go easy on the landlord because they do not want too much hassle in court and do not want to be challenged. It may weaken the legislation, and not give such residents the protection that is meant for them.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

My view is that landlords would on the whole welcome the sort of discretionary regime that we propose rather than find it unacceptable. I should make it absolutely clear that when there is a danger to families with young children and elderly people—I shall come to the issue of people with disabilities in a second—we expect local authorities, through environmental health officers, to respond by issuing the appropriate enforcement action. We shall obviously be looking carefully at that process.

With the exception of amendment No. 216, this group of amendments seeks to prescribe extra elements of the components of the new system to be described in regulations. In doing so, the amendments make assumptions about the system and assume that it can absorb those further elements without losing its integrity. I am afraid that that is not the case. The point has already been made rather effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North and others.

Amendment No. 175 would amend the definition of hazard so as to clarify that deficiencies in buildings or land should be in the immediate vicinity. It is doubtful whether that would add anything useful. Why stipulate the immediate vicinity? It would be difficult to provide evidence that buildings or land not close to the building that contained the hazard had contributed to that hazard. Most deficiencies—dampness, faulty stairs, faulty wiring and so on—are likely to be in the building containing the hazard. However, if there were evidence of a deficiency in adjacent buildings, it would

be curious not to include the effects of such deficiencies in the assessment.

I turn to amendment No. 174. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has temporarily abandoned his place. Even if I speak on other amendments, I am not sure whether he will have returned by the time that I have completed my remarks. However, in the spirit of generosity that has prevailed in the Committee, let me at least give him the opportunity to return.

Amendment No. 176 requires that the hazard bands should be

''clearly defined by the appropriate national authority''.

Those hazard bands will be described in regulations, and to be effective and to stand up to robust legal challenge, they will need to be clear. I will ensure that when the regulations are put before the House they will be precise about the hazard bands.

I am delighted to see the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings returning to the Room. I can now turn to amendment No. 174, to which he spoke with such passion. I recognise his commitment to disability issues. I respect him for that, and for his purposes in tabling the amendment, although he will not be surprised to hear that I must resist it.

Amendment No. 174 would require disability to be taken into account in the methodology used to determine the seriousness of hazards. There are two initial problems with that, which have been identified in the course of our exchanges. First, in the system that we are introducing, the calculation of risk depends on population averages and on property averages. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman does not define ''disability''. He has not at any point in his amendment or his remarks mentioned registered disability, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North pointed out, is subject to a separate statutory regime.

The hon. Gentleman's amendment fails to take account of the risk-assessment system being developed, which I described in detail a short time ago. Assessments under the health and safety rating system are based on the risk to the potential occupant most vulnerable to that risk. That has become commonplace in our exchanges. The definition of a vulnerable group under that system excludes those who could be registered as chronically sick or disabled. That is because the evidence of health risk—the evidence base on which the system depends—mainly relates to age. The guidance excludes the registered disabled because of the potential need—my hon. Friend was absolutely right—for specialist adaptations to make the dwelling suitable. Taking account of disability in statutory enforcement regimes has far-reaching implications. To add elements that cannot be supported by evidence in an evidence-based system would damage the integrity of that system and might lead to successful legal challenge.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

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

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

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

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

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

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

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

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

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

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

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

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

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

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

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Local housing authorities to review housing conditions in their districts

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 178, in

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

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 217, in

clause 3, page 3, line 34, leave out

'At least once in every year'

and insert

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

Amendment No. 179, in

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

Amendment No. 180, in

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 218, in

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

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

Amendment No. 181, in

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

'(c) issue an annual report'.

Amendment No. 219, in

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

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

New clause 2—Empty Homes (Management orders)—

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

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings seeks to put himself in the centre of British politics and to suggest that the Liberal Democrats have moved to the extreme right. I can assure him that that is not the case. On this situation we wish to—[Interruption.] Was the Minister wanting to say that he has the mantle of the far right on this Committee? I somehow doubt it.

The purpose of amendments Nos. 217 and 218 is to encourage us to think seriously about the extra responsibilities and duties that will be placed on both local authorities and landlords. The Government propose that the review of housing conditions should take place at least once a year. I am not sure that that is right; our proposal of at least once every two years would give a better balance. It is right that we discuss this matter. In their document on freedoms and flexibilities for local government, the Government say that they are trying to remove the burdens, the regulations and the reports required, but in this case they seem to be adding a new one.

If our amendments are read together, it is clear that we are suggesting that within a year of the implementation of the Bill, every local housing authority will carry out a review and produce a report, so we will make rapid progress with the new system. However, after that first report has been

produced, it does not seem necessary to repeat that exercise every twelve months. I am not sure that the use of officer time and taxpayers' money and the burden that it might impose on landlords and on tenants are justified.

I would like to understand why the Government have chosen that approach. We do not seek to undermine the system; we embrace it and support it. However, we ask how often the reviews of housing conditions in a local authority area are really needed. Important as they are, I do not think that they are needed once a year—that seems slightly over the top. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings may think that I am moving far to the right with that statement, but I am trying to occupy the centre ground.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

This is very important part of the Bill. With a review at least once a year, the authority will tally up everything that has happened—the number of prosecutions under the terms of the various parts of the Bill, for instance—and produce some sort of report about the condition of the licensing of the HMOs in their area. Clause 3(3) states that the authority must keep records, in particular for ''the appropriate national authority''—the Government, or the National Assembly for Wales.

I want to tease out of the Minister what information will be in the public domain. That is of relevance to my speech in the previous debate. When environmental health officers go into a property with score sheets and come out having done an assessment, will that be a public document?

Let us say that the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale is concerned about the state of properties in her constituency. The environmental health officers of her local authority will inspect them and produce reports on all of them. As the Minister said in the previous debate, after the completion of those score sheets, conditions may be set on a particular property. They might be low-level conditions: the property might not have exposed wires, which is a high risk, or it might be cold and damp and inappropriate for young children. Would the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale be able to access through the internet or a register the inspections of all the HMOs in her constituency, or would such matters be purely between the environmental health officer and the landlord? If the latter, the documents would not be public, so somebody who was going to rent from a particular landlord would not know the precise nature of the inspection of a property or the scoring by the environmental health officer.

If a system is to work in terms of risk assessment for individuals, that information must be in the public domain. If it is not in the public domain, the landlord and the busy council officers may be aware of it, and it may be in a dusty file in a dusty room in the hon. Lady's local authority, but those to whom that information may be useful—the public, the Member of Parliament, local authority councillors—will not necessarily have access.

I am trying to tease out of the Minister whether there will be a big register in a local authority that contains all those reports with, perhaps at the end, a summary of what action was or was not taken. It is fairly easy to find out when enforcement action has been taken, but I presume that the point of the system is to avoid enforcement action if possible, because it is expensive and because people are in danger until that course of action is followed through, which can take a long time. What we want is somebody to go in, do the scoring and come up with recommendations, and for the landlord to say that they will immediately go away and carry them out because they are a good landlord—and because if they are not a good landlord they may be prosecuted or have conditions put on their property.

The Bill sets down that there should be the annual report—which may be a nicely published document with glossy pictures—and there might be information that the Government is required to answer to questions from Members of Parliament who are interested in housing, but we do not know how the fruits of all the work of environmental health officers surveying properties will be put in the public domain or made available to those within a local community.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

The hon. Gentleman is making good points. It is important that the public are able to inspect the records. The Bill suggests that the local authority must keep records. The present relevant Act of Parliament is the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, which will be superseded on 1 January next year by the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Those records must be made public, unless there is a reason to exempt them. I cannot think of a reason why they would be exempted: can the hon. Gentleman?

While the hon. Gentleman is thinking about that, I will mention that he is supporting amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings that want to go further by making the local authority carry out a review every year and publish every action that it is going to take. I presume that he does not want there to be any exemptions to that.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

My hon. Friend and I are trying to tease out the Government's proposals, not ours. The proposed system is complex and we are trying to understand how it will operate—and I think that, on occasion, the Minister is trying to understand that, too.

If an environmental health officer makes a report and gives it to a landlord, it is reasonable that that landlord be given time to put matters right. One would not want to put a bad or critical report on a website or in a register from day one, without the individual concerned having had time to put matters right. If one goes around looking for things, one is bound to find something wrong, even in properties managed by responsible landlords. In order to be fair to landlords and provide all the relevant information, any appropriate action taken by a landlord should, if possible, be added to the report. For example, one could say in the report, ''This is the score, these are the

problems; this is what was done.'' Otherwise, people may be scared by a lot of out-of-date information that is not relevant to the property because action has been taken. We need the whole picture.

I am trying to tease out of the Minister what information will be available, at what point. Will the information be available in a form that will enable one to go to the local authority office and either tap into it via a computer or look at it in a paper volume? For example, someone may want to peruse reports on 50 houses in multiple occupation in Morecambe because they want to move to a safe place with a good record. The advantage of the system is that it may become more apparent who the bad and good landlords are. That may be part a young couple's informed choice on where they live.

Will the Minister tell us what information is likely to be in the public domain, and what format it will be in? What is fair both to landlords—we ought to be fair to them—and those seeking to occupy their properties? People may spend a lot of money assessing properties. If the relevant information is a big secret, the objective of the system, which is to make properties safe for families and individuals, will not be met.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Clause 3 is a general provision that requires local housing authorities to keep housing conditions in their areas under annual consideration, with a view to determining what action they should take. The provisions clause 3(2)(a) and (b) set out possible courses of action to deal with hazards identified under the health and safety rating system. The provisions in paragraphs (c) and (d), which declare renewal areas and provide financial assistance for home repair and improvement respectively are more general measures that stand independent of the Bill.

The provisions are designed simply to ensure that local authorities consider the condition of the properties in their areas. We are eager for local housing authorities to develop housing strategies and we encourage them to have a view on which properties they ought to prioritise for inspection. We are not a regulatory Government; we are unrepentantly new Labour. I do not wish to load anything more than that on authorities in this context. Conversely, and in response to amendment No. 218, neither do I want to weaken that requirement.

This is a bizarre turn of events: the Liberal Democrats, of all people, are in non-regulatory mode and the Conservatives, judging by the comments made by the hon. Member for Poole, are in passionate freedom of information mode. The succinct answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about the public availability of the assessments and documents is: I do not know. There may be data protection issues. I will come back to him and the Committee on that question.

I can, however, reassure the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who talked about the value of authorities publishing an annual report on housing in their district as a useful device to provide clarity for landlords, that there will be plenty of

guidance to ensure that landlords understand the new system and the powers of the local authority.

Amendment No. 180 requires authorities to publish details of their intentions before introducing discretionary licensing. The hon. Gentleman did not dwell on the matter, but I presume that he had in mind what the Bill calls additional licensing under part 2. I am not sure why that particular measure has been singled out for discussion from all the courses of action available to authorities. However, I draw the Committee's attention to clause 45, which requires authorities to consult those who are likely to be affected by the designation of an area, to be subject to additional licensing, and to consider any representations made in accordance with the consultation.

In the light of my response, I urge the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to withdraw the amendments.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister has barely made a convincing case. I am tempted to push the amendments, although my hon. Friends take a rather more measured view of the Minister's performance—[Interruption.] Not of the Minister, but of the Minister's performance.

I think that it is important that at some stage of our deliberations we receive more information about the ability of members of the public and others to access relevant information. I congratulate the Minister on his honesty in telling us that he did not know the current position. However, it would be most lamentable if we were not given more information during the later stages of the Bill.

A good point has been made about allowing appropriate access to information by tenants and potential tenants and by landlords. Whether that takes the form of an annual statement, as I have proposed, or of making the information availability for inspection, as suggested by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), is a matter of legitimate debate. However, I am not satisfied by the idea that those documents would not be available at all. I think that it was Beveridge, whom the Minister quoted earlier, who said that ignorance is a weed that is often grown by dictators and despots. We do not want ignorance to be the watchword so far as access to relevant information is concerned.

I did not receive an assurance from the Minister. However, on the happy expectation that we will be told more about the availability of information about properties and that the Minister, with his typical charm and good will, will make such information available to the Committee, I am happy to withdraw my amendments as the hour is getting late.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I do not want the Committee to think that this is a fit of pique, but the Minister did not answer my point, save to suggest that all Labour Members were all now signed up to new Labour. The point was not a new deregulatory mission of mine—I am not in any way in favour of regulation unless it is really needed, although it is needed in some of these cases. However, I do not see why the report is required

at least every year. The Minister has not answered that point.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Perhaps I can help the Minister by pointing out to the hon. Gentleman that because the housing market for the private rental sector is fragile and therefore susceptible to trends, it changes rapidly. The rate of sale of properties purchased to rent, for example, tends to be faster than that of properties purchased for owner-occupation. The pace of that change means that it is important that we keep a constant eye on it. In this case, I would rather side with the Minister and say that a regular review is necessary. I do not want to be over-regulatory, but the data that I hope will be made public for inspection—I am sure that the Minister will tell us how that can be done—must be accurate

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on at least having a stab at a justification. However, I am unsure whether the Minister would offer the same justification or another. I should like to hear from the Minister why the housing authorities must consider housing conditions in their districts on these points every year. If I am not satisfied, I shall have to press amendments Nos. 217 and 218—with your agreement, Mr. Pike.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I rise reluctantly to respond to the point, which seems to be a question about angels dancing on a pinhead. All that we are stipulating in the Bill is that each year the local housing authority should carry out a review of all the stock for which it has responsibility—that is to say, under the Bill's provisions, all the stock in its locality. Under the terms of the Housing Act 1985 there is already such a requirement on local authorities. We are asking for a consideration, not a report. We expect local authorities to keep records, which can be made available to the national authority. In a fit of greater generosity to the hon. Gentleman than I would be inclined to indulge in, it would appear that my officials are willing to consider every two years. With that, but without a commitment, I sit down.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I shall not ask the Committee to vote on the amendments, but I think that the first strike goes to the Liberals.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I beg to move amendment No. 219, in

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

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

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Empty Homes (Management orders)—

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

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

As usual, I shall try to help the Government. In the early summer of 2003 they issued a consultation paper, ''Empty Homes:

Temporary Management, Lasting Solutions''. The end of the consultation period was 22 August 2003. The Government are rightly considering—not before time—what measures they should take to end the scandal of empty homes. As we heard in earlier debates about the lack of affordable housing and overcrowding, we desperately need measures to tackle the crisis. Using some of the empty homes in high-demand areas would be a quick, cost-effective, environmentally sustainable solution.

My constituency, Kingston and Surbiton, has an affordable housing crisis. We have a lot of empty homes, primarily in the private sector. There are three roads just off the Hook junction off the Kingston A3 bypass—Brook road, Haycroft road and Gladstone road—where there are, at the last count, 22 family properties that have been empty for over a year. When there are more than 1,000 families in temporary accommodation in Kingston borough, one begins to see how outrageous that is. I shall not go into details, save to say that I and some local councillors are trying to persuade the owners of the properties to put those homes into useful occupation. It is clear from that example, and from many others arising from my discussions with the Empty Homes Agency, that the Government are right to consult. However, the local authorities need extra powers, so that when a landlord cannot be encouraged, bribed or incentivised to put those empty homes back on the housing market, there are back-stop powers with safeguards that can be used.

The consultation document from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is very good, so on opening the final draft of the Bill I was surprised to see that the Government were not even giving themselves the power to introduce one of the options in the consultation paper. The Select Committee was surprised, too, and recommendation 35 in its report on the draft Housing Bill says:

''We recommend that the Bill introduces Compulsory Leasing Orders to allow local authorities to take over the management of empty properties.''

It was quite right to do so.

The consultation document describes four options, on which it is consulting. The first option is to do nothing, and it is pretty clear that the Select Committee, Labour Back Benchers, certainly the Liberal Democrats and, I understand, Ministers are not in do-nothing mode. The other three options are all about giving local authorities the power to assume temporary management control of empty homes in one way or another.

New clause 2 uses the phraseology of the consultation paper to give the Secretary of State the power to introduce the scheme for empty homes management orders by order, subject to affirmative procedure. I agree with the Government that that is a huge topic. They need to act urgently on it, and I am staggered that they have not used the legislation as a vehicle for taking action. I am pretty sure that the Minister wants to do something on the subject. Certainly, I cannot believe that the Government would have issued such a detailed consultation

document just last year if they were not minded to do something. The sustainable communities plan mentioned taking action.

We have a suitable vehicle before us, and much of part 4, which deals with interim management orders and final management orders, creates exactly the framework that would be needed for empty homes management orders; it fits them perfectly. This is the legislation that is needed. We all know how difficult it is to get parliamentary time for primary legislation, which is what would be required to introduce empty homes management orders, so I honestly do not see why the Government are not coming forward now.

I feel passionate about the subject, because I cannot stand the fact that there are constituents in my area, and no doubt across the country, who are in bed and breakfast, or in temporary or overcrowded accommodation, while there are homes that have already been built and could be occupied tomorrow but cannot be used. It is time to act; this country should have acted on the issue years ago, and now we have the chance.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

The hon. Gentleman said that he had done an analysis of empty properties in his constituency. He was, of course, referring to the empty properties in the private sector. I should be interested to know two things. First, did he speak only to private landlords about properties that were not let for one reason or another, or did he extend his net to include private properties that had never been let but just happened to be empty for some reason? I take an amateur's interest in the subject, but the central point that I have come to is that there are a number of reasons why private properties are empty. It may be the death of the owner, a problem with the estate, or the need to refurbish the property significantly—I need not list all the reasons. I am interested to know how wide the hon. Gentleman proposes to cast his net in dealing with the real problem of empty properties in the private as well as public sector.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

My personal position is that I have cast the net quite wide to include all residential premises, whether they have been previously let or not. The Government have described different options in the consultation paper. My new clause does not preclude the Government from going around with different-sized nets; they could go either broad or narrow. I am deliberately leaving the new clause quite general so that the Government's hands are not tied in their choice of options. I understand the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman says, but there are many good reasons why properties are left empty. I am not sure whether he has had a chance to read the consultation paper, which says that the Government are thinking about the safeguards that will be needed to look after the genuine property rights of people who have a good reason for leaving a property empty.

During my discussions with the Empty Homes Agency I have been concerned about cases where there is an elderly person who does not want the hassle, or perhaps an elderly person who has begun to suffer from dementia and has to go into a care home. I am anxious to ensure that the legislation that is introduced

to give compulsory leasing orders to local authorities also provides safeguards to those categories of people. That is important. I am pleased to say that the Government's consultation paper takes such issues into account.

We cannot ignore this matter any more. The hon. Gentleman, who is a London Member, will know how difficult the housing crisis is, and how difficult it can be to get planning permission to build new houses—yet here we have homes that are already built. It will be very cheap to get those back into the market. Long planning inquiries will not be required. It will not damage our precious green fields. Let us use those houses. I know that some people are worried about property rights, and I share those worries, but the Government have got the balance right.

The House has passed compulsory purchase orders that do not just borrow the property for a short period, as this measure would. Empty homes management orders only borrow the property and give temporary management controls, before handing it back to the owner in due course. During the course of the order, provision can be made for paying rental income to the underlying freeholder. Compulsory purchase orders go much further and are a much greater infringement of property rights than what is envisaged in this worthy consultation paper.

As always I am trying to help the Government implement their own policies, which include ideas that we have supported for many years. If the Minister cannot accept the amendment tonight—I doubt whether he will—I hope that he will at least give the Committee an indication that his mind is not totally closed and that this idea could somehow, at some stage, find its way into the Bill.

Mr. Hayes rose—

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Before I call Mr. Hayes, I have to say that I used to go to school along the A3 every day until I left in 1954. I am sure that that fact will not influence the debate at all.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

That has certainly informed my contribution, Mr. Pike, not least because I am a little surprised; I assumed that you were at school much more recently.

The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton made his point on an inadequate amendment that is proposed at the wrong stage. Nevertheless, it contains a kernel of truth. His passion on this subject is to mine what a boy scout's bonfire is to Dante's inferno. That is not surprising, because mine is the party that has championed vulnerable people throughout its existence, whereas his is the party of Cobden and Bright, and others, who defended putting boys up chimneys. I do not mean to be unkind, but it is important to put Liberal amendments in the context of their sorry history. However, he is right in saying that this matter deserves to be aired and that the Government frustrated proper expectations when they failed to include any detail on it in the Bill. After extensive consultation and discussion on this subject by all parties, including political parties and people outside the House, there was a reasonable

expectation that we might move forward with some proposals on empty homes.

This is a complex area involving issues surrounding property rights, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) alluded. It would be monstrous if people were obliged to rent out property against their will due to legislation that was perfectly properly designed to expand the number of homes available. However, it is entirely appropriate for us to find ways to provide incentives for people who might not otherwise consider renting out properties. Many people might jump at the chance of doing so, with considerable benefit to themselves, and to the wider community by making additional accommodation available in the way that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton suggested. We must examine the balance between obligation and incentive in terms of private property.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

As the hon. Gentleman has said, the incentive route has been tried. It is in place and we support it. We would prefer to be able to persuade owners of empty properties to put them back on the market voluntarily. However, I have a question for him and his party to answer. Would they allow back-stop powers if, after reasonable discussion, approaches and incentives, houses remain empty for years and undermine a community? Would the Conservative party take no action? That is the logic of his party's position to date, and the logic of the position that he has outlined today.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

On the contrary, I could hardly have explained my position in more colourful terms. I am passionate about finding ways to bring empty homes into use as part of the housing stock, particularly as rented accommodation in the private sector. The Empty Homes Agency estimates there to be about 750,000 empty homes, many of which are private houses owned by individuals or families, who are not encouraged or inspired to rent them out.

The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton gave the example of someone owning a property due to an elderly relative dying. The probate might take a while, as might the process of selling the house. That person would not think about renting out the property, but if they were financially encouraged, perhaps through tax or some other means, they might do so for a period of six or nine months. That would greatly and conveniently increase the number of short-term rented properties available, because it would require no planning or building.

There is a separate issue about properties linked to commercial premises, such as flats or rooms above shops. There is a range of ways that shopkeepers and owners of such properties could be encouraged to put them to use. They could be counted as potential empty homes.

A third group of properties are those in local authority care—I use that word with caution—that remain empty. Travelling through urban areas in a Liberal Democrat or Labour controlled borough, one will see many boarded-up and empty council properties. There are even a few in Conservative

boroughs, which is surprising but true. Responsible people have an obligation to ask themselves, ''What are we going to do about that?'' Those properties often remain empty for too long, and there are real problems and inconsistencies. The Minister will know that the record of dealing with empty properties, and the speed of processing them, varies enormously among different local authorities. We could bring forward appropriate measures to cover that issue.

The final group of properties, on which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton was right to press me, consists of properties owned by people who have no intention of letting them. It might be not simply because they have not considered it, or have not been encouraged to do so, but because they are determined not to. Boarded-up properties have a very detrimental effect on the value of neighbouring properties and on whole communities. We all know of cases of owners who buy up streets of houses or parts of streets, allow them to remain vacant for a long time and deteriorate, and then board them up. That is having a really damaging effect on communities, and it is appropriate to consider what action might reasonably be taken.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are provisions in the legislation to deal with precisely the circumstances that he describes?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Yes, but they are in a later section of the Bill. That is why I said in my opening remarks that, as well as being too limited an amendment, it is in the wrong place. As the hon. Lady suggests, at a later stage we could consider amending the Bill to expand what is there already to take into account some of my other points about empty homes. Who knows? It might be that an appropriate new clause or amendment—of a more specific kind—sallies forth at an appropriate point, allowing us to do precisely what the hon. Lady suggests and making sensible changes to the provisions to which she refers.

I am determined that we on the Conservative Benches should take a thoughtful but bold move towards working with all those of good will to come up with a strategy for empty homes. It would not be as dictatorial or as nit-picking—it would certainly not be as intolerant—a strategy as one that might be proposed by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. Perhaps I am wrong, but he seems to suggest that he wants to tread on the toes of those who might, perfectly properly and for good family or personal reasons—

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I am talking about safeguards.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Gentleman has drawn back from the position that I thought he was beginning to take. Any policy should deliver real results in terms of empty homes. I am sympathetic to those at the Empty Homes Agency—I have met them and they have made their case to me—and to some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman about the scale of the problem, the failure to act and the frustrated expectations caused by what the Bill does not say. However, I shall not support his amendment, because it is in the wrong part of the Bill and it is too limited.

We expect the Government to come up with a clear explanation as to why they have not included much on the matter, and what they intend to do about it, how and when. If they do not, not only will the Empty Homes Agency and the hon. Gentleman be disappointed, but so will the many people who would be able to gain access to an affordable rented home if the Government acted in the way suggested by the Empty Homes Agency and recommended by the hon. Gentleman and me.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I start by offering the Committee the reassurance that the Government are genuinely seized of the importance of the issue. I want to say a little more about our approach to empty residential homes specified in the amendments. First, I hope that the Committee will be interested in the report that I received in June 2003 of the flats above shops taskforce established by the British Property Federation. It looks at the enormous opportunities in that sector, estimating that it has the potential to accommodate 300,000 people. That would not only serve our purposes in reducing the problems of homelessness and resolving other housing issues, but revitalise our inner-city areas and town centres. We are now carrying forward the eleven proposals and recommendations in conjunction with other national agencies. It has already been said that it is estimated that 300,000 residential properties are standing empty in the long term. As hon. Members have said, a combination of action in both areas would go a long way to address our problems with housing supply.

Before I deal with the amendment and new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, representing the party of Bright and Cobden, I shall turn my attentions to the representative of the party of Shaftesbury and Disraeli, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. It is possibly the party of the vulnerable, but historically it has been the party of property par excellence. I am fascinated to discover that Conservatives felt frustrated by the Government's failure to include measures on empty homes in the Bill. I feel a tremendous welling up of affection towards the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, not only because of his constituency title.

However, the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He referred to his party's support for the incentive schemes, which were introduced under the previous Conservative Administration by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). Although those schemes were proper, desirable and commendable, the debate has moved on, and the hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt where the debate on empty homes is now focused.

The hon. Gentleman said that it would be monstrous if people were obliged to let their property against their will, but the point of the proposals for compulsory leasing is for local authorities to step in to manage such properties irrespective of the owner's will. That is where the debate has reached and where the Conservative party needs to nail its colours to the mast. Warm words simply will not do.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister makes light of the possibility of encouraging people by incentives such as tax breaks or grants, but I was specific in the difference that I described. I painted a picture that involved, first, private property in the hands of the family of a deceased person and, secondly, an irresponsible landlord who buys up a street of houses, keeps them empty for a considerable time and boards them up, thereby acting in a way that is detrimental to other householders and the rest of the community. The Minister has a better case on obligations in the latter situation. There is a qualitative difference between the two examples, and that must be addressed by a sensible strategy.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

To that extent, the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North are right, and there is provision in the Bill along those lines. However, we are dealing with measures primarily to deal with antisocial behaviour rather than the wider problem of housing supply, so even that cunning ploy does not get the hon. Gentleman off the hook.

Amendment No. 219, tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, would require local authorities to pay specific regard to empty residential properties in considering what action to take under the provisions in clause 3. The amendment is unnecessary because empty properties will be accommodated under the hazard assessment system provided for in part 1.

The housing health and safety rating system will enable hazards to be assessed in the light of the actual or potential occupier most vulnerable to the hazard. For instance, a property that is likely to be occupied by a family with children can be assessed on that basis whether or not it is empty for the time being. In addition, clause 1(5) makes specific provision for unoccupied HMO accommodation if the premises in question are constructed or adapted for use as an HMO but are unoccupied, or not occupied as an HMO for the time being.

I turn now to new clause 2 and the proposed order on empty property management orders. I stress that the Government are committed to tackling the pernicious effects of empty homes. The case for action is clear. There are 300,000 long-standing private-sector empty homes in England. They blight communities and are a magnet for vandals. They tie up the resources of local authorities and the emergency services. Above all, bringing empty homes back into use will provide much-needed housing and reduce the need for land to develop new homes on urban fringes and in the countryside.

We have been considering the concept of compulsory leasing as recommended by the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee in its report on empty homes in autumn 2002. We published our proposals on 22 May 2003, in a consultation paper entitled, ''Empty Homes: Temporary Management, Lasting Solutions''. In it, we considered a range of options ranging from the existing voluntary arrangements to the provision, through legislation, of a new power to local

authorities to take on temporary management of such properties. The paper pointed out the need to be clear about the properties involved; they should not be second homes or commercial property or transactional vacant dwellings.

We are considering responses to the consultation, which ended on 22 August. Some issues need further consideration. They include, first, how to provide some form of temporary management role for local authorities, with all the necessary safeguards that might in some cases be justified. Secondly, we are aware that the proposal raises some fundamental issues about the right of public authorities to intervene in the legitimate business interests of private individuals. Thirdly, we need to consider how such a power would be funded so that local authorities are not discouraged from using it. It is clear that such concerns must be carefully weighed against the backdrop of public concern about the negative impact of empty homes. All survey data show strong support for action on empty homes. We therefore intend to produce a response to the consultation with detailed proposals.

The hon. Gentleman and others asked why such provisions were not included in the Bill. Frankly, the Bill deals with a number of pressing and well-developed commitments. The truth is that empty homes management orders are a relatively a new concept, and we need fully to consider the impact of the proposals before we can contemplate legislation. It is important, in an area that so fundamentally impinges on property rights, that we get our approach right. Rushing it through would be a prescription for bad legislation.

I hope that I have demonstrated not only to the hon. Gentleman but to the Committee that the Government take the issue of empty homes seriously. We are actively engaged on the question, but because of the weighty issues involved we are not in a position to propose legislation. That is why we cannot accept the Liberal Democrat amendment, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I am slightly disappointed by the Minister's response. He spent much of it saying how much he agreed, and that the Government were seized of the issue and wanted to take action. He then said that the Government would respond to the consultation in due course, but with no timetable for the response or the publication of draft legislation—and no timetable for action. I recognise that difficult issues are involved, which is why they were dealt with in the consultation paper. That is why there has been so much debate on the matter over such a long time. It is not a new policy proposal; it has been around for some time. The Empty Homes Agency has been punting it around. The Minister pointed out that the Select Committee first looked into the matter two years ago, when it took evidence and made proposals. We have already had plenty of debate.

One point that the Minister suggested might weigh against the adoption of my proposal was that it might cost local authorities money. That is a safeguard. The local authority would have to make a budget before deciding to use the power. The fact that it would have

to make such an investment would be a safeguard for property owners. Local authorities would not be able to use the power willy-nilly or without thinking whether they had a case that would stand up in court. The Minister should not be so worried about that aspect.

I shall not press the amendment to a Division. I can see that the Committee is restless and that the Whip will shortly want to jump to his feet. However, I hope that the Minister will think again. I am sure that, on Report or in another place, we will return to the issue.

I believe that some Labour Members are not happy about having to wait much longer; they, too, are looking to him and his colleagues to move quickly. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Paul Clark.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Five o'clock till Thursday 22 January at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.