Housing Bill

Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2004.

Standing Committee E

Clause 4 - Inspections by local housing authorities to see whether category 1 or 2 hazards exist

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I beg to move amendment No. 220, in

clause 4, page 4, line 22, at end insert—

'or,

(c) the Member of Parliament for that district, or

(d) a further or higher education institution located in that district, or

(e) a Primary Care Trust serving that district.'.

The Government inserted subsection (2) into the Bill on the recommendation of the Select Committee. The subsection provides a mechanism for making official complaints to the housing authority that the housing authority must act upon in order to trigger an inspection. We debated the matter a little at a previous sitting, and we discussed the fact that the complaints procedure can be triggered without subsection (2). It can be triggered either through a housing authority review, undertaken under clause 3, or for any other reason. Such reasons could include ordinary complaints from a tenant or anyone else—perhaps a neighbour—who is concerned about the state of a dwelling. However, it is possible that complaints from tenants or neighbours may not be taken seriously and may not be investigated expeditiously.

I do not wish to malign local housing authorities—they take their duties seriously—but Liberal Democrat Members wonder whether the official complaint process should be strengthened a little. Amendment No. 220 seeks to add to the two mechanisms in subsection (2)—the option of going to a justice of the peace or a parish or community council—the option of going to a Member of Parliament, a further or higher education institution located in the relevant district, or a primary care trust.

In many ways, our proposals make more sense than the provisions of subsection (2), although I realise that that provision was recommended by the Select Committee. Seeking the help of a justice of the peace is normal procedure, going through due process, but I wonder what the JP will know of the property concerned. Obviously, photographic or other evidence could be produced, but it may take a lengthy period and the JP may not have the necessary knowledge. A parish or community council might be helpful in some areas, but I represent a part of a borough that does not have such councils, so that provision would not help my constituents. That is why we decided on the three

additions. They are not the only possible additions, and they may not be the best; indeed, the Government or other members of the Committee may suggest alternatives. However, we felt that they were best for three reasons.

I am sure that hon. Members will agree that Members of Parliament deal with an awful lot of housing matters. I do, and I am sure that the Minister does. We are occasionally called to visit constituents in their homes to deal with specific housing matters such as overcrowding and other conditions such as damp, and we often make judgments. We do not deal with all housing complaints that come to us—if we did, we would have time for nothing else—but it happens occasionally. I believe that we are well placed to do that.

Including further or higher education institutions is relevant because they have a duty of care to their students. They have welfare and housing officers, and an accommodation department, and they could undertake to investigate students' complaints. Primary care trusts are strategically linked to general practitioners and health visitors, so they would have a role if we were concerned about the impact of the poor state of a property on someone's health.

Given the rationale of the amendment, it might make sense to add those provisions to the official complaint process in subsection (2). I doubt whether the Minister will accept the amendment, but I hope that he will share his thoughts with the Committee and possibly give an assurance that he will consider the question further, just as the Government did with the Select Committee's recommendations.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

It is good, Mr. Conway, to be back in the throes of our work, which we are beginning to enjoy immensely.

The amendment is a useful stimulant to discussion because it throws real light on one of the issues that we discussed at length on Tuesday. I have some sympathy with the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), in that widening the opportunity for people to gain such a response from the relevant authority is good and healthy.

Indeed, we tabled an amendment—it was not selected, Mr. Conway, but I do not question the infinite wisdom of the Chair—that would have widened that opportunity still further. It would have widened it to people living in the parish who might come together to request action. My reasoning is that if a group of people in a street or neighbourhood are beginning to feel the effects of a house or houses that are faulty or causing difficulty in one form or another, then in addition to having the opportunity to make representations to their MP or parish council, as the Government favour, they should be able to do so directly. However, that is not the subject of this short debate, because that amendment was not selected.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I thought that the hon. Gentleman's amendment was excellent. Perhaps he will have the chance to move it at a later stage. I should have thought that it could be referred to as a new localist amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I notice that after my stinging criticisms of him during the previous sitting, the hon. Gentleman is going some way to make up ground with me. That is important and I note it. I shall be less unkind to him in future; it is not fair to shoot rats in a barrel.

It is important for the Government to take the hon. Gentleman's argument on board, as there are more than a few means of encouraging the sort of action that we all feel would be appropriate. The Government suggest a justice of the peace for the district, or the parish or community council for the area in which the house is situated. Opposition Members are staunch defenders of the roles of parish and community councils; they are extremely important representative bodies, and we associate ourselves with them entirely. Justices of the peace are important local figures; again, we do not suggest that they should not be asked to play such a role. However, it seems odd, as the hon. Gentleman said, that a Member of Parliament will not have this power but a JP will.

You, Mr. Conway, and other members of the Committee know that the issues and complaints dealt with by the Bill are already often brought to Members of Parliament. We all receive correspondence in our mailbags week by week of the sort that would be appropriate to pass on for action by local authorities, but it seems a little bizarre that a Member of Parliament should have to go to a justice of the peace or his parish council to ask them to do something. [Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering, and I have no doubt that he will speak with his usual eloquence in response to the debate, but the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has merit in that regard.

We are all interested in delivering a system that enables the local authority to act appropriately whenever and wherever necessary. The more opportunity responsible people have to encourage the local authority to do so the better, although we do not want people ringing up on the off-chance to suggest that it should get involved unnecessarily. However, that is not the implication of the amendment.

The amendment is in keeping with the spirit of the Bill, it would improve the process and it would allow those with legitimate concerns to voice them to a range of local representatives, who could, in turn, pass them on to the relevant authority. In that sense, the hon. Gentleman made a persuasive case, which I hope the Minister will take on board. It could have been made better, as it was in amendment No. 182, with which the hon. Gentleman generously said that he agreed in large part. With equal generosity, therefore, let me say that I largely support his comments.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I want to look at subsection (2) slightly differently. I was not on the Select Committee that examined the draft Bill, and I wonder why a JP or a parish council—as a

corporation, presumably—should have the right to make a complaint when no one else does. Can a JP, of their own volition, suddenly decide that a matter should be looked into, or will that depend on people coming to them? If so, and the JP has to satisfy himself or herself about the issue, we shall have a quasi-legal system, which I am not so sure should apply in this case.

Let me take another suggestion—MPs. I warn colleagues that if we accept the amendment—I do not oppose it, but I want to think it through—we may be flooded with applications to intercede to get properties inspected. If MPs are to have that responsibility—and it would be a responsibility—why not also local councillors? Indeed, they would be a better choice.

In one sense, this is a Christmas tree amendment, on which we can all hang the corporations and individuals that we think should have the right to trigger the mechanism in the Bill. I am not making a definitive statement but simply asking the Minister to explain why he chose justices of the peace and parish or community councils. As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said, we do not have such councils in the Greater London area. What was in the Government's mind in drafting subsection (2)?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

With your permission, Mr. Conway, before I respond to this short but interesting debate I want, in the spirit of practicality and constructiveness that has characterised our proceedings, to deal with two matters that arose during our first two sittings, on Tuesday. The Committee may recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) asked about compliance costs, while the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) asked about public access to inspections. This may not be the Committee's view, but I felt that I was unable to provide the full explanation that I would have liked. I therefore promised to return with a fuller explanation, and I want to fulfil that promise, although I shall not detain the Committee.

Let me deal first with the costs of complying with the health and safety rating system and with the housing fitness standard. During Tuesday afternoon's sitting we discussed the costs associated with implementing part 1, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East drew attention to the relative costs of the health and safety rating system and the fitness standard, as set out in the Library research document. I promised to say more about the estimates of compliance costs for property owners and the operational costs for local authorities, which the hon. Member for Poole wanted me to clarify.

The House of Commons document reports the estimates given in the regulatory impact assessment published with the Bill. I stress that all the figures are approximate, because there has been no full-scale survey based on the new health and safety rating system. From our work on the fitness data in the 2001 English housing conditions survey, we estimated the annual total costs of works carried out under the health and safety rating system to remove category 1 hazards to be approximately £260 million. My hon.

Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East quoted that figure accurately. It compares with the figure of £470 million to comply with notices under the housing fitness regime, and represents an annual cost saving of approximately £220 million. In other words, the estimate in the regulatory impact assessment is based on the costs likely to ensue from obligatory interventions—that is, those that relate to category 1 hazards—rather than costs arising from all possible interventions. In other words, we can be certain only about the interventions that will automatically follow from the requirements in the Act.

Many of the other interventions are discretionary, which is why we could give only the figure of £260 million with certainty. We can be certain about that, but cannot be certain about the overall costs of other interventions, although we would expect other interventions in relation to category 2 hazards to follow in any circumstances.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

This is a most helpful additional explanation of the costs. As the Minister suggested, those costs caused the Committee concern when we last sat. It does, however, throw the business of defining hazards into very sharp focus. I fully understand his comment about this being the estimate of category 1 hazards. As he will recall, we were concerned about that definition. I am also worried that category 2 hazards do not seem to have been costed, given that the new system expands the competence of the authority to consider a range of hazards and conditions that had not been taken into account until now. The Minister may be about to tell us that he has a notional figure for the overall cost. If he is, I apologise for anticipating him. If he is not, I hope that we will be given a fuller explanation of the whole cost later in our proceedings, because the document becomes questionable without it. This may be a great new system, but it is less impressive if we do not know what it will cost.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point to a certain extent. In the best of all possible worlds, it would be desirable to provide that overall cost, but the Government are limited to making estimates on the basis of what we know will axiomatically follow from the Bill's provisions. The hon. Gentleman should remember that we are not venturing into completely new territory. A large body of experience and practice in relation to the fitness standard has been built up over a large number of years, and we have fairly clear theories about the overall consequence of those interventions; the figure of £470 million has already been quoted. Our assumption is that a similar number of interventions will occur.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that throughout our discussion of such matters we have emphasised the judgment-based and discretionary nature of the interventions. The consensus is that that is a strength of the new system. In a sense, it is more evidence-based and scientific, and offers clearer triggers to action than heretofore; nevertheless, it essentially relies on the experience and common sense of the inspectors. It is

not a fatal flaw in the argument that we cannot offer an overall figure for costs at this point. We will monitor the matter and make sure that the burdens are not excessive. At the same time, in the spirit of the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East, we are anxious to ensure that there is no decline in proper inspection and in taking action to deal with problems.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I accept what the Minister says. It is not easy to estimate the costs because the system involves a whole new culture and requires a different approach. However, the Minister needs to understand that if we are not comparing like with like, we may estimate for half a system in the new figure, and for the whole system in the old figure. The current whole cost of carrying out fitness standards is—

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Four hundred and seventy million pounds.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Yes, the figure that the Minister has quoted. However, his estimate of the saving refers to only part of the cost. We may not be comparing like with like. I am worried that when we expand the system to take category 2 hazards into account, we may end up with a greater figure for costs. I am not necessarily against that: it might be desirable to expect people to spend more money to comply with the expanded range of hazards that the new system will define.

No one should be under the illusion that we are definitely comparing like with like. The old fitness standards presented a total picture; category 1 hazards present a partial picture. I hope that during the course of our very long proceedings over the next several weeks the Minister will come up with some estimate, at least in notional terms, of the whole picture—the cost of category 2 hazards added to the cost of category 1 hazards. I appreciate that that will be difficult, but it does not seem impossible, given the enormous resources, skills and abilities available to him in his Department.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I will consider the matter further and, if at all possible, I will respond again, but I offer absolutely no guarantee. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the strength of our proposal and the associated compliance costs are matters of certainty, whereas it is possible to argue that the old fitness standard was not. We should remember that, in contrast with the old fitness standard arrangements, the new system triggers actions by authorities in a much more specific and definite fashion. There was no certainty about the actions that would ensue from the old fitness standard or about the costs associated with it. We can now be much clearer. Nevertheless, I undertake to return to this point if a rational estimate can be made.

We will continue to look into the matter of local authority costs, which was raised by the hon. Member for Poole, in collaboration with our colleagues in the Local Government Association. However, we have no evidence that operational costs under the new system will be higher than under the fitness standard. We accept that there will be some start-up costs and I have

said before that we estimate that they will be between £4 million to £5 million. I hope that that has assisted the Committee and has not unduly delayed proceedings.

Mr. Hayes rose—

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I see that I have not entirely satisfied the Committee.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

May I deal briefly with the second part of the Minister's comments? Later amendments will allow us to expand on our concerns about the matter. We know that there will be start-up costs covering training, adaptation and reskilling, but the Minister needs to consider the matter more fully. Given the complexity of the issue and the culture change that we all acknowledge will be involved, there could be ongoing costs. We need further explanation and better notional estimates. There will be more time to debate the matter, but I flag it up now because I do not want the Minister to conclude his remarks without appreciating that the rest of the Committee and local authorities are concerned that the estimates are not as accurate as they might be.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

As the hon. Gentleman has said, we shall have the opportunity to debate issues relating to start-up and training in due course. I am sure that we shall do so thoroughly.

Let me turn now to public access to inspections. At our last sitting, the hon. Member for Poole referred to the reports of health and safety rating system inspections and asked what information would be in the public domain. When an environmental health officer goes into a property with score sheets and makes an assessment, will that be a public document? I have to confess my ignorance of the answer, but I will seek to shed light on it.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) noted, when part 1 of the Bill comes into force, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 will apply to local housing authorities. Information will be made public unless it falls within one of the exemptions. It will be for the local housing authority to determine in each case whether any information requested in relation to a part 1 inspection is exempt. I do not expect an inspection record to be exempt. There might be circumstances in which a record has to be modified to prevent the disclosure of personal data, but that will be a matter for the local housing authority acting in accordance with data protection rules. I hope that that is satisfactory to the Committee.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I thank the Minister for that clarification. I note that that might add a little to the local authority's costs. That might be a worthy thing to do, but as one with a local authority background who has recently discussed the costs to local authorities, I know that to make a document public in order to comply with freedom of information legislation—albeit totally appropriately—a system will have to be set up and an officer will have to exercise judgment, so there might be a cost implication.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I understand the point, and it is possible that the hon. Gentleman is right. I imagine that systems exist for the disclosure of information, but this could add to such activities. We shall keep an eye on that. Although we are hesitant to trespass on any matter of local government finance, if the cost becomes a burden we will have to take that into consideration at the appropriate time when making allocations.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Conway, and to the Committee for allowing me to make those explanations. It is efficient to clarify such matters in that way because it gives colleagues the opportunity to ask questions.

Clause 4 replaces, with modifications, section 606 of the Housing Act 1985. Subsection (1) requires a proper officer of a local authority to inspect a property or area if he receives an official complaint that a category 1 or category 2 hazard exists on residential premises, or that an area should be dealt with as a clearance area. Subsection (2) defines an official complaint as one made in writing by a justice of the peace or by a parish or community council.

That issue has already been the subject of some discussion by the Committee. The right to have a complaint investigated is not restricted to a justice of the peace or to a parish or community council. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) asks why the provisions have been included. The reason is that they were introduced in previous legislation and, as hon. Members have mentioned more than once, the Select Committee recommended that they be included in the Bill. We have acceded to that request. However, I assure the Committee that it would be quite wrong to imagine that the inclusion of magistrates and parish or community councils in the Bill means that local authorities are likely to be unresponsive to complaints about the condition of properties.

Subsection (3) imposes an additional duty on an authority to inspect residential premises if, either following a review under clause 3 or for some other reason, it considers that appropriate to determine whether a category 1 or category 2 hazard exists on the premises. Subsections (4) and (5) provide for regulations to prescribe the manner in which an inspection of premises under subsection (1) or (3) is to be carried out and how the hazards in the premises are to be assessed. The purpose of the provisions is to provide that the inspection and the hazard assessment are carried out in accordance with the proposed health and safety rating system.

Subsection (6) imposes a duty on the proper officer of the local authority to make a written report to the authority without delay if he believes that a category 1 hazard exists on the premises inspected, or that the area inspected should be dealt with as a clearance area. Subsection (7) requires the authority to consider such a report as soon as possible.

The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton would extend subsection (2) to allow a complaint to a local authority by the local Member of Parliament, local higher education establishments and the local primary care trust. The

hon. Gentleman anticipated my response, which is that I am reluctant to yield on the amendment, because I do not want to add new burdens to local authorities. We need to be careful about requiring authorities to act on complaints rather than allowing them to use their discretion to do so. We should not divert authorities or have them investigate cases unnecessarily. That is not a pejorative observation about the quality of representations from Members of Parliament or worthy bodies. However, there must be an element of discretion regarding the complaints that local authorities pursue. The experience of the officers will be that some of those complaints are likely to be vexatious or frivolous, so there has to be a limit.

Mr. Hayes rose—

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I should like to pursue the argument. Then we shall have the opportunity for discussion.

I remind the Committee what I said about subsection (3). That provision would have the effect of requiring authorities, in response to what might be somewhat pejoratively described as an unofficial complaint, to arrange for an inspection to be conducted if that was considered appropriate. As I have said, in my experience, authorities generally investigate complaints as a matter of policy, unless they have reason to think that a complaint is vexatious or unreasonable. I must say, in an unusual burst of modesty, that I am not sure whether I, as a Member of Parliament, have the special experience in these matters that would add weight to any complaint that I might make. Of course, other members of the Committee are more expert than I.

In response to an issue raised by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, let me make it absolutely clear that it is not necessary for a Member to refer a case through a magistrate, or a parish or community council. As he rightly said, in London we know not of such creatures in any circumstances. The same is true in most major urban areas. To impose on authorities a new statutory burden along the lines set out in the amendment would not be particularly helpful. We can trust them to exercise sensible discretion. To summarise the immortal words of Peel in the Tamworth Manifesto: if it ain't broke, don't mend it.

It is clear from our exchanges that there is little evidence that makes a case for the amendment. When producing legislation, Government must not act on theory or speculation, but on evidence. Without such evidence, I am reluctant to support the amendment, and I urge the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton to withdraw it.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

As the Minister takes that view, will he reassure the Committee regarding the following hypothetical case, which may arise if the amendment is not passed? Suppose that a Member complained to his local authority about a dangerous property, but the local authority did nothing and someone was injured in the property, which turned out to contain a category 1 hazard. In

such a case, the council would almost certainly be liable on the grounds that it had been warned about the property but had failed to do anything about it.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I turn to those with greater legal experience than I have in such matters, but I am pretty confident that the council would be liable in those circumstances—the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in that respect. One would expect such neglect to have serious consequences, but one would expect the same in the event of a serious and earnest complaint from any source. It would be quite wrong to say that a complaint should be neglected if it is from a source other than a JP, a parish or community council, an MP, a primary care trust or a college. We expect all complaints to be taken seriously unless the local authority, judging by its experience, believes the complaint to be from a vexatious or frivolous source.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

It is early, but this morning the Minister seems like a good racehorse having a bad run. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, on the one hand he tells us that of course an MP's complaint would be taken seriously and of course the local authority would ''as a matter of policy''—his words—investigate a serious complaint, but on the other hand he tells us that, as an MP himself, he doubts whether any MP would have the expertise to make a complaint. He tells us that the local authority would take seriously both unofficial and official complaints and that is why he rejects the amendment, yet he tells us also that we must not overburden local authorities because otherwise they will have too many complaints to handle.

We need some clarity. The truth is that it would have been better if the Minister had listed either everyone or no one in the Bill. If no one were listed, this debate would not have occurred. The Bill could have made some general remark about serious complaints being investigated, or about complaints being channelled through a local authority that would have discretionary powers. However, because the Bills refers to parish and community councils and JPs, the Minister—to paraphrase his hero, Ernest Bevin—has opened a Pandora's box from which a hornet's nest has emerged.

If the Minister cannot be clearer, I will be surprised if we do not return to this issue at a later stage to demand greater clarity. The right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, have better runs and will win other races in the course of the day's proceedings.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Well, we are in metaphorical mode. To pursue the equine analogy and the theme of horse racing, the hon. Gentleman is really champing at the bit this morning. He has obviously had something stimulating for breakfast. For the purposes of clarification, I did not say that Members of Parliament would not have expertise in the matters we are discussing; I said that I see no particular reason why Members of Parliament qua Members of Parliament should automatically have greater expertise in these issues, and therefore no reason why their representations should be given greater weight than those of other citizens.

I concede the point this far: characteristically, constituents come to MPs as a last resort, but that is not always the case. The more we become glorified councillors and local community figures, the more constituents are inclined to come to us for quite run-of-the-mill matters, if I may describe them thus. I represent a constituency only four miles from Westminster, so it is not costly for a constituent to pick up the phone and call me. I have picked up the phone in my office in the House of Commons to be informed that a constituent's window got broken that morning and to be asked what I was going to do about it.

We come across that sort of thing, but on the whole people come to us if they have had a bad experience. If there has been a failure to respond, we would make a forceful representation, and we would certainly expect the force of that representation to be responded to. I would expect complaints about the condition of a property and behaviour to be responded to in all circumstances. There has been no evidence adduced to the Committee to suggest that that is not so and that we need belt and braces in addition to JPs and parish and community councils. That, presumably, is what moved the Select Committee to call for their inclusion in the Bill, together with what already appears there. I say again: if it ain't broke, don't mend it.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I shall be brief. As ever, I am grateful to the Minister for responding to my question as to why JPs and parish councils are mentioned. As I understand it, parts of the Bill replace parts of the Housing Act 1985. He said that subsection (2) is in the 1985 Act, and that the Select Committee, having looked at the draft Bill, recommended that it stay in legislation. For me, that is an entirely satisfactory explanation.

I do not expect the Minister to answer now, but it would be interesting to know to what degree that subsection has been activated in the past 18 years. It may be that nobody has gone to a JP, or that a JP has never applied that subsection. It may also be that neither a parish council nor a parish community have done so. If the Committee could be given some indication of how the subsection has been used—not now, but later in the proceedings—that would be helpful.

I say that for one good reason: we change legislation to add something to the statute book, but in so doing we have the opportunity also to cut out the extraneous elements of old legislation, especially in the case of complex and massive pieces of legislation such as this, which we want to make as short as possible—or at least not unnecessarily long.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tone of his response. We will consider the question of references from JPs and parish and community councils to establish whether there are any data. If there are, I will report back to the Committee. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about the need to

reduce regulation where possible, and I am delighted to say that towards the end of part 1 there are a number of deregulatory clauses.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I am grateful for the comments made by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. That information would be useful. I suspect that the powers have been used in few cases, and I think that the same suspicion lay behind the hon. Gentleman's comments. If that is the case, it would strengthen the argument for the approach suggested in amendment No. 220. Such information is the evidence that the Minister was seeking. He said that it did not exist, but he does not know that, because he has not looked for it. He has not answered the question. When he finds the answer, he may want to return to that matter. To make that easier, I suggest that a way forward may be to require local authorities to give due consideration to representations from a Member of Parliament, a primary care trust or a JP, rather than using the official complaint processes.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Gentleman has hit on a valuable point. I wonder whether he agrees with me that the Minister was saying that, in effect, there is little difference between an official and an unofficial complaint, and that although an official complaint is defined in the Bill, an unofficial complaint from a responsible person—an MP or a local councillor, for example—would probably be treated in a similar manner. That adds weight to the hon. Gentleman's point, because the Minister has conceded that official complaints have little status.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

Indeed—I was coming to that point. Subsection (3)(b) explains what the local authority's thought process would be. It states

''If, in the case of any residential premises in the district of a local housing authority. . . as the result of a review under section 3 or for any other reason a local housing authority consider that it would be appropriate for an inspection of those premises to be carried out''

and so on. The key phrase is

''or for any other reason''.

That, I think, is what the Bill is referring to in respect of a representation from a Member of Parliament or a member of the public. However, the local authority has no duty to consider such a representation. It may be a small point, but if the local authority had lost something, or if it was not cutting the mustard, it might say that a representation was inappropriate without having considered it. The phrasing of subsection (3)(b) provides too easy a let-out.

My amendment is not about imposing extra regulations, duties or responsibilities, but about making sure that local authorities do what the Minister asks of them. Surely, he wants to ensure that local authorities consider representations from a Member of Parliament, or a justice of the peace, or anyone else. All we want is to ensure that the local housing authority gives proper weight to representations. That occurs elsewhere in legislation, particularly in relation to duties that fall to Secretaries of State. They are often asked to consider representations, reports and so forth. I wonder

whether that would strike a better balance between the official complaint procedure and what is in subsection (3).

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I shall be brief, because we have given the issue a good thrashing. We expect local authorities to respond to complaints from all sources and to take them seriously. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) asked about liability. He is right that the local authority must reasonably decide whether to inspect; if it unreasonably fails to do so, it could be liable. That adds further force to the local authority's need to be responsive to complaints.

My final observation is that if the Government had clear evidence that the system was failing, we would act. However, there is no evidence of widespread failure to respond on those issues. For that reason, we do not feel the need to go further than in the Bill.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

As the Minister said, we have given the issue a thrashing, but we may feel the need to return to it. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I beg to move amendment No. 183, in

clause 4, page 4, line 40, leave out

'the manner in which, and'.

There are still a few issues that we must thrash out. This is a probing amendment: we are mainly just messing about with the Minister's wording so that we can have a debate.

The amendment addresses two issues. First, a number of landlords and the Council of Mortgage Lenders have raised concerns about the fact that landlords who have properties in different local authority districts have to deal with different regimes. Therefore, they want clear guidance so that the systems are similar and they know how to operate them in different areas. If the regulations are drawn up in such a way that regimes are substantially different, that will cause problems.

The second issue concerns the need to tease out the difference between an official complaint and the local authority considering an inspection for any other reason. Presumably, when guidance is laid down, an official complaint would mean that the local authority would have to inspect, and the discretionary side of things would mean that it would consider whether to inspect if someone who was not a JP or in one of the other categories phoned up and said, ''There is a problem here.'' Once one has got past that, presumably the system would be the same for any inspection, whether or not it were as a result of an official complaint or just a normal inspection by the housing authority. Will the guidance specify a different procedure for those two types of complaints, or are they to be treated as one? Common sense would dictate that once a local authority decided to look at a property the system would be the same whether the complaint was official or discretionary.

When inspections take place, will they be comprehensive? If there is a specific complaint—about wiring, for instance—will the inspector go through all 29 elements on the score card, or will they go into the building for 15 minutes to examine the specific complaint, such as whether there is a wiring problem? The property might have been comprehensively inspected a month earlier, which would be a good reason for them not having to go through all 29 facets of the inspection. I am trying to tease out how much discretion authorities will have when they undertake inspections. If quite a lot of discretion is allowed, there might be a temptation when a fault is found to do a full inspection because there might be other faults.

There must be conformity and uniformity between the regimes of local authorities, but an official inspection by their environmental health officers could be anything from a 10-minute visit to a two-hour ''painting of the kerbs'' inspection in which they go from A to Z and do everything fully and comprehensively. The costs to a local authority, and the potential costs to the landlord, could be substantial: that would depend on how heavy-handed the inspection regime is. How can we have both conformity and a degree of flexibility so that inspectors can use their common sense? We do not want somebody to have to go into a property with all the forms and go through a set procedure for however many hours that may take to ensure that everything is properly done every time that a complaint is made.

The fact that a tenant might pull out some wiring if they have an issue with their landlord must be taken into account. There might be a disagreement over rent, or about attitude. It is not unknown for tenants occasionally to do something to a property if they are in conflict with the landlord. If we are not careful, we will end up with an inspection regime in which people regularly turn up to examine faulty wiring or something else that has been caused by criminal damage. How heavy-handed and how practical would it be to draw up guidance and regulations that make clear the responsibilities of landlords who have properties in different districts?

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

The amendment is useful because it enables the Committee to think about the regulations that the Government are required to lay under subsection (5) on how inspections are to be made. To my knowledge—I hope that I have not missed papers sent to me by the Government—we have not seen those regulations yet. Will the Minister say when we will get sight of them, or refer me to the relevant published document that I have failed to read?

I have a specific point about what the regulations ought to cover. It relates to something that the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health brought to my attention. How will samples be gathered, and will an environmental health officer have the power to take samples? The samples might be of mould, to discover its potential to damage health, or of air samples, in order to examine ventilation—or of other things that I have not thought of or would not wish to consider this morning. Will the Minister make it clear

whether under the regulations EHOs will be given the power to take those samples, and that the landlord will not be able to prevent those samples being taken?

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Poole has raised very specific points, and I am grateful to him for that. The amendment would remove the phrase ''the manner in which''. I fail to understand why that phrase is necessary given that it is immediately followed by

''the extent to which, premises are to be inspected under subsection (1) or (3)''.

Perhaps the Minister could explain what is covered by ''the manner in which'' but not covered by ''the extent'', particularly given paragraph (b), which states:

''the manner in which the assessment of hazards is to be carried out.''

I am not saying that the provision should read ''the extent to which the assessment of hazards should be carried out'', but I fail to see why the phrase is necessary in clause 4(5)(a). Beware the politician on a crusade, but I have crusaded over a number of years to keep legislation as simple as possible. This is an opportunity to remove at least one small phrase from this massive Bill.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I shall respond first to the hon. Gentleman. I explained the purpose and effect of the clause when we debated the previous amendment.

The amendment would prevent regulations from prescribing the manner in which premises are to be inspected. The objection to prescribing the manner of inspections—the way in which they are carried out—is not clear to me. The regulations under clause 4(4) are those also referred to in clause 2. Regulations under clause 2 will prescribe the method and therefore the manner of the inspections. That is why that phraseology appears.

I shall deal with the other speeches in reverse order, turning first to that of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. He asked about regulations. I detected a slight note of complaint about the lack of availability. It is true that we have not circulated the draft regulations among Committee members. However, on 19 January we circulated a very hefty document, in which we spelled out the policy intent behind the regulations. As and when it is appropriate, we will make the draft regulations available.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the power to take samples and what would happen in the event of a landlord seeking to prevent the taking of those samples. There are powers later in the Bill to deal with failure on the part of various persons to co-operate with the inspector or to permit access, and specifically on the issue of samples, we have tabled an amendment to clause 177, which I am sure he will want to consider carefully. In broad terms, regulations will derive from version 2. That will be available in final form later this year, along with the draft enforcement guidance documents that are already available to the Committee in draft form.

I recognise that the amendment is a probing one. The hon. Member for Poole raised anxieties that there might be different regimes in different districts. It is very important that there should be uniformity in the application of the provisions. We will try to ensure uniformity of approach through guidance, in the regulatory framework set out in regulations, and by the process of training.

As I shall discuss later, if we have time to debate the relevant amendments, to which the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) referred, the draft versions of the health and safety rating system have been widely available for a long time now. We are confident that there is already a high level of awareness among environmental health inspectors. That awareness will be reinforced by a training system and various other forms of information aimed at bringing about uniformity. The hon. Gentleman raised an important question on behalf of various stakeholders. I am grateful, but I assure him that we are aware of its importance.

The hon. Gentleman asked about official complaints. I am beginning to regret the open-mindedness with which the Government approached the recommendations of the Select Committee, specifically on the issue of magistrates and parish and community councils. It has seemed to me to give rise to perhaps more heat than is justified by the provisions. However, let me say again that the procedure to be adopted by inspectors will be the same regardless of the source of the complaint.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Will the Minister allow me?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman has made an intervention from, as they say, a sedentary position.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I do apologise, Mr. Conway.

To be absolutely clear, are we saying that, as I suggested, equal weight will be given to official and unofficial complaints?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

To adopt another sporting metaphor, that is a hole in one. The hon. Gentleman is correct.

The hon. Member for Poole asked whether the inspection would be restricted to the specific complaint. It could go beyond it if there were reasonable grounds. If an inspector went to premises in response to a complaint about live wires and found that a wall was in imminent danger of collapse, it would be absurd not to respond to that.

On the other hand, we attach importance to the idea that excessive impositions should not be placed on landlords. There will be no requirement for an environmental health officer to keep reinspecting premises. It is a matter for the environmental health officer's discretion. We shall deal with that in guidance, but we are eager to avoid any suspicion or suggestion that EHOs or surveyors should be in the habit of going on fishing expeditions. I hope that those undertakings will reassure the hon. Gentleman.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

Yes; the Minister has gone a long way towards reassuring me on the concerns that I raised.

One other small point arises about official or other complaints. Presumably figures will have to be collected on official complaints. If a JP phoned a housing authority and said, ''I believe there's a problem with some housing in multiple occupation'', would the authority not be tempted to say, ''Don't make it official, Fred. We'll go and inspect it''? I raise the issue because it has just crossed my mind—[Laughter.] Would a housing authority want lots of official complaints? I gave the example of HMOs, which might be in the area that the authority was supposed to inspect, but the overall figures for official complaints might bear no relation to the state of housing in the area because of the way in which local people use the complaints procedure. Anyway, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Category 1 hazards: general duty to take enforcement action

Clause 6 - Category 1 hazards: how duty under section 5 operates in certain cases

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

On a point of order, Mr. Conway. I am sorry to detain the Committee. Amendment No. 5 may only have been a technical amendment, but there is no mention of it or of the amendments to clause 6 on my selection list.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I promise you that these things are confusing for everyone, including me. The selection list, which the Clerks Department issues at each sitting, shows hon. Members which amendments have been selected for discussion; it does not show those that have not been selected. The Chairman and the Clerk, however, are guided by the amendment paper. That may seem confusing, but the Minister formally moved amendments Nos. 5 and 6, and will now formally move amendment No. 7, because the Committee debated them earlier. Once we reach the place in the Bill to which such amendments apply, the

Minister need only move them formally. I accept that that is extraordinarily confusing, but it is no doubt the historical and logical way to do things.

Amendment made: No. 7, in

clause 6, page 6, line 4, at end insert—

'(2A) In the case of paragraph (ca) of that subsection, the authority may regard the taking of emergency remedial action under section (Emergency remedial action) followed by the service of an improvement notice under section 9 as a single course of action.

(2B) In the case of paragraph (cb) of that subsection, the authority may regard the making of an emergency prohibition order under section (Emergency prohibition orders) followed by the service of a prohibition order under section 18 as a single course of action.'.—[Keith Hill.]

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Category 2 hazards: powers to take enforcement action

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in

clause 7, page 6, line 21, leave out 'and'.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment No. 9.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

In the light of the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, it is important that I explain the amendments.

In response to a category 2 hazard, a local housing authority may select the appropriate enforcement action from the options in subsection (2). It may serve an improvement notice under clause 10, make a prohibition order under clause 19, serve a hazard awareness notice under clause 27 or make a demolition order under section 265(3) or (4) of the Housing Act 1985, as substituted by clause 38.

Government amendments Nos. 8 and 9 correct an omission from the clause by adding to the list of possible enforcement options the declaration of a clearance area under section 289(2ZB) of the Housing Act 1985, as substituted by clause 39. The amendments do not in themselves add new powers, because the purpose of clause 7(2) is to summarise the powers provided in part 1 of the Bill and in the Housing Act 1985.

Those options, as amended, are essentially the same as those provided by clause 5 in respect of category 1 hazards, except that making a demolition order and declaring a clearance area are available as responses to category 2 hazards only in circumstances to be specified or described in an order made by the Secretary of State under section 265(3)(c) or (4)(c), or section 289(2ZB) of the 1985 Act.

Subsection (3) provides that, when a course of action has not proved satisfactory, the authority may take the same course or a different course of action.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 9, in

clause 7, page 6, line 23, at end insert

'and

(e) section 289(2ZB) of that Act (power to make a slum clearance declaration).'.—[Keith Hill.]

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Clause Guidance about inspections and enforcement action

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I beg to move amendment No. 187, in

clause 8, page 6, line 32, leave out 'may' and insert 'will'.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 188, in

clause 8, page 6, line 33, leave out 'about exercising' and insert 'on'.

Amendment No. 173, in

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

'(d) their functions in relation to fire safety legislation and in particular the installation of automatic fire sprinklers in properties to which Part 2 applies.'.

Amendment No. 189, in

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

'(d) the new qualifications and training required by Environmental Health Officers to undertake these functions.

(e) the nature and expenditure of time required so that these functions may be considered to have been properly fulfilled.

(f) the circumstances in which they may be required to compensate landlords for costs incurred in the carrying out of their functions.

(g) their functions in relation to fire safety legislation and in particular consideration be given to the installation of automatic fire sprinklers in HMOs'.

Amendment No. 246, in

clause 20, page 14, line 3, at end insert—

'(2A) The local authority may seek the guidance of the appropriate national authority on any of the requirements specified in (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) of subsection (2)'.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

We seem to be cantering through the Bill. The thrust of our amendments is to tease out a little more about guidance for the enforcement and inspection regime. We also want to know the likely costs for local government.

Subsection (1) states:

''The appropriate national authority may give guidance''.

It is clear that guidance does not need to be given, which is why we suggest in amendment No. 187 that it ''will'' give guidance. I wonder whether it would be nice to give the National Assembly for Wales the choice; I presume that when the clause talks of a national authority it must mean either the Government or the Assembly.

The guts of what we wish to discuss come in amendment No. 189, which would add paragraphs (d), (e), (f) and (g). Paragraph (d) would make it transparent what training were expected. It is clear that roles to be undertaken under the new system will

require training. The briefing paper suggests that environmental health officers may need up to five days' training. That might vary, but one ought to be specific about what is required of local authorities.

Paragraph (e) is proposed because certain specifications are expected of local authorities. Paragraphs (f) and (g) also add to the guidance. We are trying to expand the degree of guidance needed so that the time and cost implications for local authorities are much clearer and more quantifiable.

The Opposition's general theme is to try to ensure that the costs of the new system to local government are fully compensated for. It is therefore important that central Government gives local government specific guidance so that it is much easier to quantify its duties. Legislation sometimes states that local authorities ''shall'' do something, and some authorities, which are gold-plated, do it very well, while others do it less well. We want the situation to be clear so that authorities know what the costs are and the Local Government Association can make representations to the Government for proper compensation.

Unless the Minister reassures us fully, we may be minded, at an appropriate point and with your indulgence, Mr. Conway, to press amendment No. 189 to a Division.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

Amendment No. 173, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, relates to fire sprinklers in HMOs. Its purpose is to make the link between HMOs, which are covered mainly in part 2, and an effective hazard remedy with statutory guidance on part 1. It draws attention to the significant contribution that sprinklers can make to ensure a safe HMO environment. I am sure that it will have cross-party support because on Second Reading the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) and the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope) referred to the tragic deaths of two brothers who lived in an HMO. The hon. Member for Wealden took a delegation to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who signalled that the Government were paying significant attention to the amendment. I, too, spoke about sprinklers on Second Reading.

Some 35 per cent. of all fire deaths and 39 per cent. of all fire injuries occur in HMOs. In 2001, there were more than 22,500 fires in HMOs, which resulted in 116 deaths and more than 4,700 injuries. Those are significant statistics, as I am sure Members will agree. Between 1991 and 2001, injuries caused by domestic fires increased by 19 per cent. In 2001, the total was 13,881. The total cost of residential fires, including fires in HMOs, stands at the record figure of £1.9 billion. The fire risk is therefore significant, and my amendment, if it is accepted, would go some way to addressing that obvious danger to the community. I believe, as do many Members, that sprinklers are an effective way of reducing the personal injury, physical damage, grief and financial hardship caused by fires.

Despite what I have said, the cost of installing sprinklers is significant, but I have learned that landlords and others can greatly offset the cost of installation against the reduction in insurance premiums. Insurance premiums continue to rise because of the risks that I have described, but I stress that insurance costs should stabilise, if not go down, if we can halt the rise in fire deaths in HMOs.

There are many myths about sprinklers. In Hollywood films, when there is a fire in a building, including in a domestic one, sprinklers go off all over the building. That is a myth. Sprinklers do not go off all over the building. Sprinkler technology goes back 100 years and is very high-tech today. If a fire starts in a room in which there is a sprinkler, only the sprinkler head in that room will be activated. As the fire travels through the premises, the rest of the sprinkler heads of the sprinkler system will be activated in turn.

Another myth about sprinklers is that they cause huge damage to premises, including domestic premises, which I am discussing. The amount of water from a sprinkler head needed to extinguish a fire is far less than that which is used when the fire brigade arrives and pumps large volumes into the premises. Fire sprinklers not only save lives but probably cause significantly less damage than the fire brigade can cause when it arrives on the scene.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Gentleman is making a convincing case. His argument will be made more convincing if he accepts my suggestion to link it to the new draft guidance, which refers to the hazard of fire. Shockingly, although the incidence of fire is relatively small, the possible health outcomes are profoundly worrying, particularly in older properties and for older occupants. That is made clear in the table on page 195 of the guidance, which makes a strong case in support of his amendment.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point, which I fully accept.

Finally, I remind the Minister that in 1997 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, then the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, commissioned research by Entec Ltd. That research reported that 52 per cent. of HMO fire deaths occurred in buildings that were three or more storeys high, even though 16.5 per cent. of households lived in such buildings. A tenant living in a bedsit house of three or more storeys is almost 17 times more likely to be killed in a fire than an adult living in a similar, single-occupancy house. The amendment is a good one, and I hope that the Minister is minded to accept its spirit, if not its detail.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I support all the amendments in the group. The amendments tabled by the Conservative Front Benchers are excellent and the amendment on fire sprinklers tabled by the hon. Members for Bolton, South-East and for Stafford deserve the Committee's support. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East raised serious issues about fire sprinklers, on which the Government need to move. On Monday we shall no doubt have that debate on Second Reading of the Fire and Rescue Services Bill, through which the

Government seek to adopt a more preventive approach. The hon. Gentleman made a serious contribution to explaining why they should. I end by saying that Okocha was on fire last night and Bolton did very well.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The clause enables the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly in Wales to give guidance to local housing authorities on the exercise of their functions under part 1. I hope that that addresses the concerns of the hon. Member for Poole. Such guidance will broadly fall into two categories: how a property is to be inspected and hazards are to be assessed using the housing health and safety rating system; and how authorities should apply the enforcement duties under powers provided in part 1 once they have assessed a hazard. Those relate to the use of improvement notices, prohibition orders, hazard awareness notices, demolition orders and clearance, and also to the use of the emergency measures that have been added to the Bill by Government amendments.

Amendment No. 187 would place the appropriate national authority under a duty to give guidance rather than giving it the power to do so. The Committee need have no anxiety about that; I am more than willing to issue guidance. Indeed, I regard it as essential for local authorities to have clear guidance if they are to carry out their functions effectively. However, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for the relevant national authority to be under a duty to give guidance.

Although the hon. Member for Poole is eminently reasonable in his style and in the character of his speeches, I am very disappointed by amendment No. 188, which states:

''Leave out 'about exercising' and insert 'on'''.

That strikes me as just a tad pedantic. Perhaps he would like local authorities to have an academic dissertation on the philosophy of housing conditions rather than a usable document that will be of help to them in the practical business of carrying out their functions. He should get real.

Amendment No. 189 adds to the topics on which guidance may be given. It appears to reflect some concern about the ability of authorities to adapt to the health and safety rating system and the new enforcement regime. The reference to fire safety, which overlaps with that in the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford—amendment No. 173, so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East—indicates a different concern about the way in which the health and safety rating system deals with fire safety issues. I shall return to fire safety after I have addressed the other matters dealt with in amendment No. 189.

It is self-evident that a local authority has to ensure that it can carry out its functions. In order to do so, it has to employ officers who are capable of doing a particular job. Fortunately, authorities already have qualified professional officers: environmental health officers. I accept that the health and safety rating system is new and that officers will need familiarisation. However, I have no reason to think

that they are likely to need new qualifications, as set out in the amendment. I am slightly curious about the matter, although I do not want to press it.

Version 1 of the health and safety rating system was issued in July 2000 to enable local authorities and the profession to familiarise themselves with its principles. There were some operational difficulties with version 1 and we have worked hard to iron them out. However, there is no fundamental difference of principle between versions 1 and 2. That being so, it does the profession no favours to suggest that those of its members who have inspected numerous properties in order to assess fitness now need new qualifications in order to carry out hazard assessments—assessments that will be backed up with comprehensive guidance and, if authorities so choose, information technology support.

The new subsection (1)(e) that amendment No. 189 would insert into clause 8 seems to be an attempt to write a regulatory impact assessment into the guidance. The guidance on the use of enforcement tools cannot be the place for a regulatory impact assessment. Inspections are likely to vary considerably in the length of time that they take, both in the field and back in the office.

The computer program, which will be part of version 2 of the health and safety rating system, should enable inspectors to save time by entering data as they carry out the inspection. We envisage that many authorities will have one of those devices that gas and electricity meter inspectors use to enter data on the spot, after which time that is recorded and the calculations made.

As for the proposed new subsection (1)(f) under amendment No. 189, it is not clear in what circumstances authorities may need to compensate landlords. Landlords will have a right to appeal against the improvement notices and prohibition orders for which the Bill provides before they take effect. However, in the case of emergency measures added to the Bill by the Government's amendments after the measures have been taken, compensation may well be the outcome of an appeal in such cases.

I suggest that compensation should be dealt with on appeal. I cannot agree that it should be a matter for Government guidance under clause 8 or, indeed, that there should be a presumption of compensation for a landlord who has kept his tenancy conditions so hazardous that a local authority felt it had no option but to take enforcement action. Before leaving the general matter of guidance, I wish to remind the Committee that one of the documents that we published last month and which has been made available to the Committee is a consultation document inviting comments on the draft guidance. We take the consultation exercise seriously. We have widely distributed the draft and have invited comments by 26 March. We are preparing non-statutory guidance for landlords. Responsible landlords will want to work alongside local authorities from a position of mutual

understanding and the landlord guidance will, we hope, help to achieve that. We shall be consulting on such matters in due course.

I turn to amendment No. 173 and the aspect of amendment No. 189 that deals with fire safety. I thought, as ever, that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East spoke powerfully. He put a good case about the fire risk in HMOs. Indeed, it is on the basis of his analysis that we are bringing forward our proposals for HMO mandatory licensing, especially with regard to occupied HMOs with three storeys, where the greatest fire risk is located. I accept the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's analysis of fire in HMOs. Fire risk is one of the 29 hazards that are dealt with by the health and safety rating system. It is an important hazard and I assure members of the Committee that the guidance will certainly deal with the handling of fire hazards.

I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I do not believe that it is necessary to single out fire safety on the face of the Bill. Perhaps I should say something about the way in which local authorities are being asked to deal with hazards. The Committee now has a comprehensive understanding of such matters in the light of—it says here—my very clear exposition at our previous sitting. However, we worked on the matter together and we developed a common understanding of such matters.

I shall recap briefly. When inspecting the property, the inspector asks, ''What is the likelihood of an incident taking place—for example, the risk of an outbreak of fire—and what harm will be caused, taking account of other factors, such as the precautions that have been taken in the property and the means of escape?'' Clearly, the same severity of harm—death or serious injury—can arise from a high risk of fire as from a fall or an electrical hazard. We want local authorities to prioritise action against all serious hazards, whatever their profile. We will emphasise that in the enforcement guidance that we will issue to authorities, which will also include advice on how housing authorities can work with fire authorities to ensure that housing and fire-safety legislation work effectively.

Where an authority has assessed a serious category 1 hazard it will have a duty, under clause 5, to take appropriate enforcement action. Should it serve an improvement notice under clause 9, the action taken by the owner or landlord must—as a minimum—ensure that the hazard ceases to be a category 1 hazard. We do not prescribe specific means of dealing with hazards, because that would be inconsistent with the risk assessment system. However, the technical guidance on fire hazards that we have issued under this clause will point to the greater risk of fire in multiply occupied buildings. It will also say that for any such building there should be adequate fire protection, including means of escape, appropriate fire detection and alarm systems and, where appropriate, emergency lighting and sprinkler systems or other firefighting equipment. That will appear in the guidance. We will expect inspectors to enforce along those lines where a hazard is identified.

I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East and of the Committee to the requirements of the proposals in part 2 on mandatory licensing of HMOs—specifically, that there should be an annual return by the landlord of an HMO regarding proper certification of gas, electrical appliances and smoke alarms. That is set out in schedule 4.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

Does my right hon. Friend envisage a situation whereby there had been a serious fire in an HMO, and the local authority had advised the landlord to fit sprinklers to prevent any further deaths in that property and they had not done so? Does he envisage a situation in which the local authority would have the right to take enforcement action to fit a sprinkler in such a property if the landlord had refused to accept guidance?

Keith Hill: The answer to that is yes. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend. I say to him again that, of course, where an inspector makes such requirements we would expect the landlord to respond. We will not require authorities to have sprinklers in all HMOs, but it will be appropriate to fit them where the risk justifies it. Although the technical guidance may be difficult to digest and look difficult to read, it could not be clearer about that requirement.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Will the Minister go as far as to say that the guidance will recommend smoke alarms, which are inexpensive and easy to fit, as a matter of course in those high-risk properties?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

No, I do not think that I am in a position to include them as a matter of course. However, certification for mandatory HMO licensing will require evidence that smoke alarms are in place; that is already in the Bill.

We are talking about the generality of stock. Part 1 begins by stating that local authorities have a responsibility for the good condition of all stock in their district. We must think about the impact of such a crime, and the burdens on local authorities and home owners. It is for those reasons that I cannot make such an undertaking.

Government new clause 3 requires local housing authorities to consult fire authorities before taking enforcement action under part 1 in HMOs or in the common parts of a building containing one or more flats. That is the type of property where fire risks are highest.

Amendment No. 246 would enable a local authority to seek guidance on the mandatory contents of prohibition orders. Our guidance will be so comprehensive and splendid that it will be hard to envisage an authority seeking anything more. More seriously, it is not for the Government to tell local authorities what to do in particular cases. I am sure that the Committee broadly shares that sentiment.

For all those reasons, I beg the hon. Member for Poole to withdraw his amendment, and I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East not to press the amendment on which he spoke.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

The Government need to be pressed on these matters—and certainly with regard to amendment No. 189. But first, as the Minister gave a perfect, wonderful and excellent explanation in the current discussion, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 187.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 10, in

clause 8, page 6, line 37, leave out second 'or' and insert—

'(ba) their functions under Chapter 2A in relation to emergency remedial action and emergency prohibition orders, or'.—[Keith Hill.]

Amendment proposed: No. 189, in

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

'(d) the new qualifications and training required by Environmental Health Officers to undertake these functions.

(e) the nature and expenditure of time required so that these functions may be considered to have been properly fulfilled.

(f) the circumstances in which they may be required to compensate landlords for costs incurred in the carrying out of their functions.

(g) their functions in relation to fire safety legislation and in particular consideration be given to the installation of automatic fire sprinklers in HMOs'.—[Mr. Syms.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 8.

Clause 9 - Improvement notices relating to category 1 hazards: duty of authority to serve notice

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I beg to move amendment No. 222, in

clause 9, page 7, line 33, at end insert—

'(2A) An improvement notice under this section may be served on any occupants of the residential premises concerned, but only to require such occupants not to obstruct or impede the completion of any remedial action required in a related improvement notice for those premises.'.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

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

No. 223, in

clause 9, page 8, line 13, at end insert—

'(5A) The improvement notice may require any remedial action that would render the property uninhabitable only to be taken after the occupants have been informed and had the opportunity to find alternative accommodation.'.

No. 224, in

clause 9, page 8, line 18, at end insert—

'(7A) A copy of the improvement notice may be displayed in the residential premises affected, at the discretion of the local housing authority.'.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

We now move on to chapter 2—''Improvement notices, prohibition orders and hazard awareness notices''. We have reached the beginning of the enforcement regime for the standard rating system that we have just discussed. My amendments, which also stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, relate to how the occupant of the premises is affected by improvement notices. I should say at the start that I had not got to schedule 1 prior to tabling my amendment. Some of my concerns, which I have raised through the amendment, pertain to later parts of the Bill, which the Government have covered. However, this is still a useful opportunity to bring out some of the issues. I shall try to do so briefly, because I know that we will deal with them later.

I seek to raise three points in tabling these amendments. First, how would the process deal with an occupant or tenant who was impeding and obstructing the implementation of an improvement notice? Amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings also deal with that. It is worth getting on the record the Minister's response about what process he envisages would be adopted where a tenant or occupant was obstructing and impeding the implementation of an improvement notice.

Secondly, amendments Nos. 223 and 224 related to how those tenants or occupants would be affected during the remedial works. How would they be informed—would they be given time to find alternative accommodation? Although I am sure that it is not in the Government's mind that tenants should suddenly be made homeless through this process, we must be sure that there is protection for them. I understand, after a closer reading of the Bill, that the Government have a process for doing that. Under paragraph 5(1) of schedule 1 there is a requirement for notices to be served on the occupants. I have not picked up on that point because I am more relaxed about it. However, I would like some clarification on how the improvement notice procedure would work to ensure that the tenant or occupant had a chance to find alternative accommodation. Again, I am already anticipating future debates, particularly on clause 12.

Thirdly, although clause 12 does not specify what would happen as clearly as it might, my impression is that it would, through the improvement notice procedure, allow the notice to be suspended until such time as the occupant or tenant had found alternative

accommodation, or some other event had happened. If I have understood the Bill incorrectly, perhaps the Minister would explain what protections there are for tenants and occupants who are in a property needing remedial action due to category 1 and category 2 hazards, and what will become of them during the process of remedial works.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I take the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. A number of answers to his questions are set out in the schedule. I understand that the Bill takes some working through and that he had not worked through to the schedule when he tabled his amendments. I have a degree of sympathy with him, so I will not be as cruel as my speaking notes.

Where a local authority has a duty to take the most appropriate enforcement action on a category 1 hazard under clause 5, the serving of an improvement notice under clause 9 is one of the courses of action available to it, unless the premises are already the subject of an interim management order or final management order under part 4. The notice requires the person on whom it is served—normally the owner or landlord—to take the remedial action specified in the notice. The minimum action required by a notice must be sufficient to ensure that there is no longer a category 1 hazard. A notice can require an owner to remove a category 1 hazard from residential premises, and to take action in non-residential premises where the deficiency that gives rise to the hazard is located—for example, if dampness rises from commercial premises that have flats immediately above them, and remedial action is necessary for the health or safety of actual or potential occupiers of those flats.

Improvement notices will perform the function of repair notices under the current fitness regime, and are likely to be the most common response to a hazard. Amendment No. 222 reveals a misunderstanding of why a notice is served on an occupant. Schedule 1, as the hon. Gentleman has now discovered, requires copies of notices to be served on occupiers and people with a relevant interest. That is for their benefit and it is a matter of their right to know what action is being taken. Let me pause at the issue of obstruction. There are separate provisions in part 7 that deal with that. I draw the Committee's attention to those provisions and to the provisions of clause 33, which set out the penalties incurred by the obstruction of the work by any party.

Amendment No. 223 is motivated by a decent desire to protect the interests of occupants. If there is a serious hazard, the authority will be concerned to start the remedial work as soon as possible or to move the tenant away from the hazard. The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the occupants' need for alternative accommodation. That is important, but we must remember that the tenant is moved away to remove the threat of a category 1 hazard from them. There is an urgency and priority about dealing with such a hazard, which may be threatening to life or limb. It would be wrong to leave a vulnerable tenant exposed to a high risk of injury.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I certainly appreciate what the Minister is saying and the Government's intentions. If a tenant is in danger because of a category 1 hazard, one must take action. However, homelessness might be more damaging to a person's well-being than staying for a short period once the hazard has been brought to their attention. What would happen to that person and their family while the process was going on? What provisions do the Bill, a notice or a local housing authority make to ensure that families are not made temporarily homeless? That might be even worse than the hazard.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

If the local authority thinks that it would be safe, it can allow longer for the work to be carried out than the 28-day minimum period, if the occupants have a problem with that. An improvement notice will not always require the vacation of the premises; indeed, that would be an unusual situation. There is no universal prospect of large-scale homelessness. Indeed, consider experience heretofore of the application of the fitness standard. If interventions by local authorities were leading to significant levels of homelessness, we would all have heard about that as constituency MPs.

In all circumstances, the occupier will get a clear copy of the notice and the time scale under paragraph 5(1) of schedule 1. If the work is so substantial—I come to the hon. Gentleman's point—that it cannot be carried out without great difficulty, it may lead the authority to prohibit the use of the dwelling altogether and consider alternative accommodation for the tenant. We intend to address that point in the guidance. It would be inappropriate to lay on the local authority the kind of obligation the hon. Gentleman refers to; there are a variety of responses to such a situation. There may be circumstances in which it would be inappropriate for the authorities to provide temporary accommodation for a particular type of occupant. There must be flexibility for the local authority to vacate the premises in a small number of cases where it might be necessary. We will deal with that in the guidance.

Amendment No. 224 is unnecessary. There is nothing to prevent the authority from displaying a copy of the improvement notice in the residential premises, although it will not absolve them of the duty, in paragraph 5 of schedule 1, to serve a copy of the notice on the occupier. In light of my response, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

The Minister's answer was helpful. I am glad he was not too cruel with me.

The guidance will be crucial to this effect. Can the Minister give the Committee the assurance that if a tenant is asked to vacate a property quickly, as in the prohibition order—which we will come to—even though it may not be in statute, they will be provided with accommodation? Will he assure us that the guidance will make it clear when rehousing would be appropriate for a housing authority?

In view of the Minister's remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 - suspension of improvement notices

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 190, in

clause 12, page 9, line 42, leave out (b).

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

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

No. 191, in

clause 12, page 9, line 44, at end add—

'(6) An improvement notice shall be suspended where the occupier of the premises impedes or obstructs a landlord from complying with the notice. Such suspension shall continue until the tenant allows the necessary work to proceed unimpeded or the landlord acquires vacant possession.

(7) An improvement notice shall be suspended where following the service of the notice, the landlord has put in hand measures to cause the property to revert to single household occupancy'.

No. 192, in

clause 13, page 10, line 32, at end add—

'(9) An improvement notice shall be revoked in all cases where the HMO, in respect of which the notice was served, has reverted to single household occupancy'.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The amendments bring us back to the issues, debated a few moments ago, about proper protection for landlords, a much-maligned minority—although not by the Minister, who has previously given a balanced view on these matters. It is vital that we strike a balance between the proper expectations of tenants and the important role of landlords. As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said in relation to his amendment to an earlier clause, we must build into this legislation a range of measures to protect landlords from the behaviour of irresponsible tenants. We know the picture is mixed. Some elements of the Bill deal specifically with the repercussions of the irresponsible behaviour of tenants. All members of the Committee would acknowledge that tenants are not always perfect. My amendments, particularly those that would amend clause 12, go some way to ensure that landlords receive appropriate protection.

Amendment No. 191 is at the heart of the group. It is designed to clarify the position of landlords faced with obstructive or unco-operative tenants. The landlord would not be liable for incomplete work if they were prevented from undertaking it by the tenants. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole described a situation where tenants and landlord might be in dispute over a matter unrelated to the job in hand of work stipulated by the authority and the tenant might use that opportunity to pursue an unreasonable case against a landlord.

Proposed new subsection (7) in amendment No. 191 is an attempt to clarify the status of improvement notices should the property revert from multiple to single occupation. That is to ensure that if a notice were issued to complete improvement work, but the state of the property were to change in the interim—should the property change hands or, as is more specific to the amendment, should the landlord cease to rent out the property and decide to change it to single occupancy—the authority could issue a fresh notice that was applicable to the property under its new status, and the status of the original improvement notice would be revised. Both suggestions are not unhelpful, and they go some way to redress the balance in favour of landlords. That should be an important aspect of this clause.

I conclude my remarks in the expectation that the Minister will once again recognise the common sense of the amendments and embrace them. I am sure that had he thought of them first, he would have included them. If he will embrace them, we can move swiftly ahead with the whole Committee supporting the amendments.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

In response to the hon. Gentleman's invitation to embrace his amendments, in the immortal words of Evelyn Waugh:

''Up to a point, Lord Copper.''

Clause 12 would provide for an improvement notice to be suspended at the discretion of the local authority. For example, a notice may be suspended until such time as the current occupier ceases to occupy the premises. The notice may specify an event that will trigger the end of the suspension. Guidance on the use of suspended notices will be issued under clause 8.

I turn now to amendment No. 190 on the suspension of improvement notices, which was moved eloquently if not entirely persuasively by the hon. Gentleman. An ordinary unsuspended notice comes into operation 21 days after it is served by virtue of clause 14(2), and there are then seven further days before remedial works can be required to start by virtue of clause 11(3). The reason for the inclusion of clause 12(5)(b), which amendment No. 190 would leave out, is that in the case of a suspended notice the extra days can be dispensed with, because advance warning of the date on which suspension ends has already been given in the notice itself.

The first limb, as it were, of amendment No. 191 would relieve the person on whom an improvement notice is served of the responsibility to comply with it if he is obstructed in carrying out the necessary remedial works. Two issues are involved. The first is that the action required by the improvement notice is suspended for reasons that the local authority has already taken into account, following its assessment of the hazard and its likely impact on occupiers. It is not a reaction to an event occurring later. The second issue is that it cannot be in anyone's interest that enforcement action, which the authority will have

embarked on for good reason, should be deferred simply because the person on whom the notice is served has run into some difficulty.

Clause 28 makes it an offence to fail to comply with an improvement notice that has come into operation; but, of course, in any proceedings it is a defence if the person on whom the notice was served had reasonable excuse for failing to comply with it. In my view, that is the right balance. We need to bear in mind that the improvement notice is served to deal with a hazard from which people need protection.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am surprised at the Minister. Earlier, he accused my hon. Friend the Member for Poole of being pedantic, but surely he is himself dancing on the head of a pin. The Minister is saying that, in law, it will be entirely possible for a landlord to use as a proper defence the fact that he could not reasonably comply with the notice because tenants were obstructing him and preventing him from doing so, yet he is not prepared to accept an amendment that anticipates that situation before it gets to law. Under the amendment, the local authority could say that it had properly served the notice because of the definition of the hazard, as the Minister described, but that it was impossible for the landlord to comply with its instructions because of his circumstance in respect of tenants. Surely that is simply a way of making the process fairer and easier, instead of causing the matter to go to law.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I remind the hon. Gentleman that there are provisions in the Bill for appropriate action against those seeking to obstruct in those circumstances, but I also remind him—we must never forget this—that the central focus of this part of the Bill is the fact that we are in the business of removing threat and danger to the occupants of premises. Frankly, I would be very reluctant to put in the Bill any phraseology that would offer the opportunity for irresponsible landlords to delay that process. I reiterate my conviction that, in the Bill and in law, a landlord has sufficient recourse and can take appropriate action to defend himself against a charge that he had behaved unreasonably.

I now turn to the second limb of amendment No. 191 and to amendment No. 192. They would enable a landlord of a house in multiple occupation who is served with an improvement notice to avoid complying with the notice by reverting his property to a single household occupancy. I am genuinely shocked by those proposals. Clause 13 enables a local authority to revoke an improvement notice, although in the case of a category 1 hazard it may do so only if it is satisfied that there are special circumstances that make it appropriate to do so.

The amendments seem to assume that the reversion of a property from HMO to single occupancy household will make a hazard disappear. I accept that risks from fire, for example, are generally greater in HMOs than in single household premises, but dangerous stairs or exposed electrical wiring are still dangerous, however many people are in occupation. Those must be matters for the local authority's discretion. As I said, we give authorities that

discretion, and we trust them to apply it—primarily in the interests of those people who are at risk from hazards, but also with reasonable attention to the interests of landlords when those can safely be addressed.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I know that the Minister is a sensitive beast, and I do not want to shock him more than is necessary, but I made it clear that it would of course be open to the authority to issue a fresh notice, if appropriate, based on the property's new character. It seems entirely appropriate that, having issued a notice on the basis that the property is an HMO, we can look at the matter again if it ceases to be an HMO. After all, the whole basis of the Government's approach is to separate HMOs from other properties. However, since the guillotine is about to fall, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [6 November 2003] and the Order of the Committee [20 January], to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 13 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 - Procedure and appeals relating to improvement notices

Clause 20 - Contents of prohibition orders

Schedule 2 - Procedure and appeals relating to prohibition orders

Clause 28 - Offence of failing to comply with improvement notice

Schedule 3 - Improvement notices: enforcement action by local housing authorities

Clause 32 - Offence of failing to comply with prohibition order etc.

Column Number: 121

Power to charge for certain enforcement action

Clause 41 - Recovery of charge under section 40

Clause 43 - Index of defined expressions: Part 1

Column Number: 122

Consultation with fire authorities incertain cases

New Clause 4 - Emergency remedial action

New Clause 5 - Notice of emergency remedial action

New Clause 6 - Recovery of expenses of taking emergency remedial action

New Clause 7 - Emergency prohibition orders

New Clause 8 - Contents of emergency prohibition orders

Column Number: 126

Appeals relating to emergency measures

New Clause 10 - Repeal of provisions relating to demolition of obstructive buildings

New Clause 11 - Transfer of jurisdiction in respect of appeals relating to demolition orders etc.

Column Number: 128

Miscellaneous repeals etc. in relation to fire hazards

Standing Committee E

Housing Bill

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. I wish to draw attention to two matters; I hope that my doing so will be helpful to the Committee. Looking at the selection list and at where the next knife—or whatever we call it—falls, on Tuesday, we shall not have too big a debate. However, the Chair can never determine the merits and importance of various amendments, because that is for members of the Committee to determine. They will have their ideas about which matters they want to discuss and use their sense to ensure that we debate all provisions properly. I say that as guidance and I hope that it will be taken in such a spirit.

Secondly, if our debate goes to the time set for Tuesday afternoon, it will be a fairly long sitting. I will be in the Chair and, at a convenient point after about two and a half hours, it will be my intention that the Committee has a comfort break. I say that now so that people can bear it in mind and plan accordingly. It is helpful to members of the Committee to know what the Chairman has in mind.

Clause 44 - Licensing of HMOs to which this Part applies

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I beg to move amendment No. 249, in

clause 44, page 28, line 30, leave out 'the following' and insert 'all'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

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

No. 250, in

clause 44, page 28, leave out from

'HMOs in line 30 to end of line 7 on page 29.

No. 227, in

clause 44, page 28, line 31, at end insert

'( ) any HMO in the authority's district of 3 storeys or above or in which at least 4 people live, and'.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

Thank you, Mr. Pike. It is nice to see you back in the Chair as we move to the next part of the Bill. It is about houses in multiple occupation, which stirred up passions among many hon. Members who spoke on Second Reading, some of whom are members of the Committee. Indeed, the provision stirred up passions among some landlords who sometimes do not believe that they receive a fair crack of the whip.

Amendment No. 249 is simple; it would delete ''the following'' HMOs and insert ''all'' HMOs. It is a probing amendment and provides a good opportunity for the Government to explain briefly why they want to restrict the scope of the licensing regime as they have

in the Bill, when so many other organisations are involved in such matters. We all receive e-mails and have full postbags of letters from various campaigning groups that consider that the Bill is drawn too narrowly. Although it will be possible for local authorities to license some of the smaller HMOs voluntarily, at what point will the line be drawn? However, as we shall see from the Liberal amendment, there is a difference of opinion.

Many of us, particularly those who have student populations in their constituencies, have been lobbied by student organisations, which are a little upset that they have been excluded from the Bill. About 260,000 students live in university halls of residence and a further 800,000 students live in private rented accommodation, some of which is good and some less good. Students have made a powerful case to me that their accommodation should be covered.

Our amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to set out why the Government have decided to draw the line where they have. It might enable members of the Committee to elaborate on some topics to which I have referred. It is an important probing amendment. We must draw the line somewhere, but such matters were a major part of our debate on Second Reading—indeed, at the beginning of this part of the Bill, when we are talking of first principles before reaching the nitty-gritty, it is appropriate to ask important questions, because once the line is drawn and the Bill moves on, many people will be asking why. The amendment gives us an opportunity to place on the record the reasons why the Government have reached such conclusions.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Amendment No. 227 is a Liberal Democrat amendment, but like the Conservative amendments it is a probing amendment that challenges the Government's thinking, not so much about the Bill, but about the accompanying regulations. We wonder what prompted the Government to restrict the licensing of HMOs to properties of three storeys with five or more occupants. I realise that there are other proposals for HMO licensing—before the Minister gets to his feet, I know that if an area has a problem, the council can apply for selective or additional licences. I realise also that additional licences could get around some of the problems of what has been called ''studentification''. However, concerns remain that the Government are setting the framework too tightly.

The framework is fairly new to the public. Labour's 1997 and 2001 manifestos make no mention of the mandatory licensing of HMOs being restricted to properties of at least three storeys with five or more occupants. I am sure that many of those who read the manifestos believed that licensing would apply to other properties, so some will be disappointed. The Minister may wish to explain how that fact was accidentally omitted from the manifestos. In 1998, the Department issued a consultation paper on HMO licensing; again, the threshold was not mentioned in the consultation paper.

Most tellingly, Government relied on the Entec report to pick out the most dangerous properties. I believe that the reasoning behind their desire to restrict the provision to properties of three floors or more and five or more occupants is that they are the most dangerous HMOs, but can the Minister say why the Entec research concludes that HMOs of three or more storeys but with only three or four occupants do not pose as high a risk as those with five or more occupants? I understand that the Entec report concludes that all three-storey HMOs pose a high risk, but I am particularly concerned about the question of the number of storeys.

There is considerable support for a broader definition of HMOs. Shelter would like to see a change, as would the National Union of Students, because most students not living in university accommodation occupy two-storey properties; they tend not to live in three-storey properties. Others would support a broader definition: for example, various HMO action groups have sent me e-mails and letters asking for a better definition.

The Entec report mentioned the risk to people in HMOs that would fall outside the Government's prescription. It states:

''this does not infer that risks in these HMOs''—

that is HMOs of less than three storeys—

''is negligible. Indeed, about 40 per cent. of the deaths in two-storey bedsits and shared houses occur on the floor above that of fire origin, demonstrating that there remains a risk of people being trapped by fires originating elsewhere in the building, particularly where the building is occupied by vulnerable persons. Also, 48 per cent. of all HMO fire deaths occur in buildings of one or two storeys.''

That suggests a significant problem, and one that occurs not only in properties with three or more floors.

The Government need to take the opportunity to explain their thinking, because people are concerned that Ministers are being over-prescriptive. I realise that making the change suggested by amendment No. 227 is not the way to do it—the Minister need not explain why the amendment would not work—but it allows him to explain the Government's position. If the Minister were to say, ''Actually, we are restricting licensing to HMOs with three floors and five or more occupants as a first stage because of the work involved, and then we will extend it,'' he might be met with some understanding. If he said that the scope of licensing will be extended in a year or two, people would have confidence that progress is possible. However, the Department has given no indication that it has any plans to do that.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

We have heard from my right hon. Friend the Minister that the vulnerability of the residents is an important consideration in the Bill, and I am sure that we all support that. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the vulnerability of many HMO residents who are not covered other than by the discretionary powers is a cause of concern?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Yes, I agree entirely. My quote from the Entec report refers specifically to buildings occupied by vulnerable persons. Many such buildings have one or two storeys rather than three storeys, so a whole group could be excluded.

I hope that the Minister will be positive and assure the Committee that the Government intend to widen the scope of the measure and that this is an interim stage to allow the system to get going. Some proactive councils might come to the Government and say, ''We would like to extend licensing to this group of housing in Bournbrook in Selly Oak'', or the centre of Cardiff, or places of a certain scale such as those. However, my concern is that a lot of HMOs will be in areas that—unlike the places that I have just mentioned—are not full of other HMOs. Such areas will get missed and will not have the advantages of HMO licensing, because councils will not come forward with additional licensing proposals for them.

Geraldine Smith (Labour, Morecambe and Lunesdale)

I have some sympathy with the comments made by the hon. Members for Poole (Mr. Syms) and for Ludlow (Matthew Green). I have some concerns myself; I would like the Government to license all HMOs, but I understand why they have not. We should congratulate the Government on making a good start with the HMO registration scheme, which will be helpful in my constituency.

I seek clarification from the Minister on one or two points. Why do the Government not feel that it is necessary to license all HMOs? I appreciate that they have given councils the discretion to do so in areas where there may be a problem. There certainly is a problem in parts of my constituency, such as the west end of Morecambe, where it might be appropriate to license all HMOs.

The criteria of three or more storeys and five occupants puzzle me. Eight people could be living in appalling conditions in a two-storey HMO that would not have to be licensed. What difference does an extra storey make? I am also concerned that if there are basement flats, they will not be considered to be a storey. Some of the most appalling conditions that I have come across in my constituency were in basement flats with problems of damp, flooding and so on. A basement should count as a storey. In Morecambe, there are many two-storey houses with garret flats. Are they to be considered three-storey or two-storey houses? I would like clarification on that. The vast majority of HMOs in my constituency are built in that fashion.

Once again, I congratulate the Government, and the Minister in particular, although I did not think that he had a good record on accommodation when he was deputy Chief Whip—

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. Keep to the amendment.

Geraldine Smith (Labour, Morecambe and Lunesdale)

I am sorry, Mr. Pike. However, I will add that I think that the Minister has done an excellent job with his housing brief.

2.45 pm

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Far be it from me to comment on the hon. Lady's final observations, but I will say that we will watch how the Minister progresses over the coming weeks before we make our ultimate judgment about his worth and quality.

This group of amendments raises important issues, as was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole and the hon. Member for Ludlow, as well as the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith). It prompts us to consider how wide the legislation needs to be. There is a good argument for extending it, which the hon. Lady referred to: the problem with the way that the Government have defined the houses that are to be licensed is that it will exclude some houses that are occupied by highly vulnerable citizens and are in poor condition. Those may be the very houses that the Government seek to bring in line with the improved standards that, we are told, lie at the heart of their intentions with regard to the Bill.

I will illustrate that point. In some parts of the country, there are not many tall houses. That is the case in the east of England. In my constituency, in the fenlands, there are relatively few three-storey houses, as one might imagine. We do not have swathes of Edwardian and Victorian houses with three, four or five floors because of the nature of the terrain. However, that does not mean that there are no houses that are rented or in the hands of private landlords, or that there are no vulnerable people living in them, nor does it mean that some of those houses do not have the prevailing hazards and consequent risks that lay at the heart of our debate about part 1.

In many urban areas—I am thinking of my past experience as a county councillor in, and resident of, Nottingham—there are many houses of the character that comes to mind when we consider the Bill's provisions. There are lots of tall houses in multiple occupation—often occupied by students, as the hon. Member for Ludlow and my hon. Friend the Member for Poole said—concentrated in particular localities such as cities and suburbs, that are largely rented in the private sector. That is the typical house that we picture when we imagine an HMO, but they are not universally spread across the country. I accept that a line must be drawn somewhere, but I am worried that this definition might exclude a significant number of houses that the Government—judging by their stated intentions—want to be licensed.

There are other more specific issues. Student accommodation has been mentioned.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

It might help if I point out that the Government used to share a similar view to the hon. Gentleman and me on this matter. A consultation paper published in 1999 by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions states:

''The Government is not convinced that all houses occupied by three or four people should be exempted.''

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The critical point to emerge from that pithy and useful intervention is the fact that—I recall exactly what the hon. Gentleman said—the Government concluded that not all the houses that fell outside the current definition were ones that they wanted to fall outside it. In other words, the Government's intentions in the Bill in terms of HMOs and the good reason to license them are not really matched by the Bill's details. Some of the privately rented HMOs in some parts of the country will not be included because they do not match the physical description set out in the Bill. That will lead to a kind of inequality. There is a certain unfairness in the Government's proposal.

The argument about student accommodation was fiercely—well, powerfully; hon. Members are never fierce, although they are occasionally passionate—made on Second Reading. The Minister's response, which I thought was pretty reasonable, was that he would rather those things were done by university or college authorities in concert with local people, including landlords; I guess that tenants would have a role to play, too. He is right to say that in many cases such arrangements deliver the goods. The current position is certainly an improvement on that which pertained a decade or more ago, when student accommodation was typically of lower quality.

To be frank, part of the reason for the change is that student expectations have risen. On Second Reading, one hon. Member—it may have been the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon)— described a miserable student existence in inadequate housing. I had a vision of him sitting in a dreadful slum, eating baked beans out of a tin—

Dr. Iddon indicated dissent.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

It may not have been the hon. Gentleman, and I do not want to disparage him if it was not. Conditions have changed, but although there have been improvements, standards of student accommodation are inconsistent, as a visit to any university town would reveal. There are still many examples of student accommodation that, notwithstanding arrangements between college authorities and local landlords, is not up to scratch.

Students, although not typically a group that we would describe as being at the very frontier of vulnerability, are easily exploited because they are young people who will not live in a particular locality for ever and they are not always aware of what they can reasonably demand from landlords. There are real issues about student accommodation. I do not necessarily make the case that the measure should be extended, but I think that we need to test the Government once again on why they decided not to, what they took into account, and what the studies that they must have carried out revealed.

That is the essence of the case for extending the measure. The amendment was designed to stimulate precisely this debate and to tease out from the Minister why the Government chose the criteria that they did. As the hon. Member for Ludlow said, it looked at one point as though the Government would choose a

different set of criteria. I am absolutely certain that the Minister, with his legendary diligence, will have asked his officials estimate the implications of different sets of criteria. We are talking about five or more people in a building of three storeys or more. One wonders what would happen if the Government reduced the number of people to four, as was suggested at one point, or took out the height consideration altogether.

The Minister will reply—I am surprised that he is not rising to intervene, but he is probably saving this point for his peroration—that the risks or hazards associated with tall buildings and numbers are the critical factor, and that fire risk, for example, is particularly profound in buildings of a certain height. That is borne out in some of the material provided to us prior to this sitting. I acknowledge some of the points it contains, but I should be most interested to hear the Minister expand on the reasons why that particular set of criteria was chosen, what the alternatives would have led to, at what point the Government made up their mind on their approach, and—most saliently—whether they intend to change the criteria. If they are planning either to extend licensing or to reduce it, we need to be given a signal now. Will there be a review in six or 12 months to see what impact licensing has had? Do the Government have a wider agenda—are we being shown only the tip of the iceberg?

A balanced approach must be taken. The other side of the coin is whether an extension of licensing might deter people who are already private landlords and others from continuing in or entering the market. There are strong arguments for taking comprehensive action, but equally strong arguments—perhaps the Minister considers them more persuasive—that, in view of the acknowledged desirability of expanding the private rented sector to provide the sort of houses to rent that are absolutely necessary to many of our citizens, the fragile market should not have to sustain the extra burden that licensing might bring. If the latter is the case, we must be told. I certainly worry about it—[Interruption.]

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. Before they come into the Room, members of the Committee must make sure that mobile phones and pagers are in silent mode.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I apologise, Mr. Pike.

For the reasons that I have outlined, we need to know whether the Government have plans. There is anecdotal evidence from Scotland, where the rules have been applied differently, a greater number of houses brought into the licensing regime, and the criteria are tighter. I do not have chapter and verse to support my argument, but there has been some effect on the number of houses available for rent and, indeed, on landlords entering the market.

That was reported to me only yesterday by a representative organisation. Organisations that represent landlords, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, and several people whom I have met over the past several weeks are worried that licensing would be a

significant burden and deter people in a fragile market at the very time that we want it to expand. A balance must be struck. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ludlow is becoming edgy in his seat, but he may just have been uncomfortable. He was probably hesitating—every good Liberal +Democrat Member should be in a constant state of hesitation.

The purpose of the amendments is to probe the Minister. The debate is important. If members of the Committee search their memories of the Second Reading debate, they will recall that several hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber commented on the scale and extent of licensing. It is vital to get the right marriage between the proper protection that the Committee and the Government believe licensing will bring and its potential impact in terms of creating additional burdens and disincentives to the market.

As we said this morning, some will say that the only way to put the measure into practice properly is to ensure that, if we target, we pick the right target. That is why we must know the reasoning behind the provisions regarding five or more people and three or more storeys. We also need some clear guidance from the Minister about his notional view of the impact that the clause will have on the sector. I am mindful of comments made to me by landlords, their representatives and other organisations about their worries. The hon. Gentleman has stopped hesitating.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The third key question is, does the clause outline how far the Government will go or will they go further? After all, having started to take matters up the hill of licensing, we want to know whether the Bill sets out half a hill or the whole hill.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Gentleman is a good listener. If he reads the report of our proceedings, he will see that I said that the salient point was to discover the Government's intentions. The impact that the measure will have on the private rented sector is vital, because those who are involved in that sector, or are considering such involvement, will want to plan for the future. I am interested not only in what the Bill will do, but what it suggests that it will do. If the Bill is a sign that the Government intend to go much further, that of itself will affect the business decisions and commercial judgments of those who are looking to enter the marketplace or expanding their holding in the marketplace.

The hon. Gentleman is right to encourage me to repeat that the Government's intention is the salient point. We expect the Minister to deal with it at appropriate length to satisfy our concerns, so that the amendments to which my hon. Friend the Member for Poole spoke can either be pressed to a Division or withdrawn. That vital decision hangs on the Minister's reply.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

When the Minister announced a manifesto commitment to introduce a licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation, I gave three cheers. Now that I have had

the chance to read the proposals in more detail, my response is down to one and a half cheers because what I had hoped would be in the Bill is missing.

I wish to refer to two issues that were highlighted in our debates on a previous Housing Bill. First, we discussed whether we should have a national licensing scheme or a discretionary scheme that allowed local authorities to consider the local situation and decide whether to introduce registration of HMOs in their area. The then Opposition spokesman for housing, now the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), argued strongly with Ministers at the time that the definition of HMOs should be a property of four or more people, and that was included in the discretionary registration scheme.

The definition was right then, so why is it wrong now? That is an obvious question to ask and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can explain the Government's thinking and satisfy me. Why, when the then Opposition spokesperson—subsequently the Minister for Housing and Planning—argued with great passion for such a simple definition to be used for the discretionary registration scheme, is it not now appropriate for the national licensing scheme? At the time, the policy was not only that that was the right definition, but that it was the right definition for what the then Opposition were arguing for, which was a national licensing scheme as well as for what it eventually became, which was part of the definition of the discretionary registration scheme.

Secondly, we argued strongly at the time for a national licensing scheme because we did not believe that vulnerable individuals would necessarily be protected by the discretionary powers that were being given to local authorities. We believed that those vulnerable people had a right to be protected in whichever area they lived. Clearly, since then our worries have proved well founded because dozens of local authorities throughout the country have not gone for the discretions that have been available to them and hundreds, if not thousands, of vulnerable tenants have not been protected by registration schemes because local authorities decided not to adopt them.

If we are right now to go for compulsory rather than discretionary licensing, why are we arguing that the narrow definition is all right because lots of properties that we believed should have been within the definition in 1996 will now simply be potential properties to be included in the licensing scheme at the discretion of local authorities? If discretion has not worked so far, why are we now relying on it to support people who are living in vulnerable conditions but who do not fall within the narrow definition adopted by the Government?

Perhaps I may press the Minister further to see what the Government's thinking is about the funding they will give local authorities for these matters. I presume that where local authorities pursue national mandatory arrangements for licensing, they will get support in the form of extra funding for that statutory requirement. Presumably, however, if they decide to

pursue a discretionary element of the scheme, they will not get funding. Is that a fundamental difference? Is that why the Government will not go as far as they did in 1996 in terms of definition—because they are not prepared to make available the necessary resources to fund a national scheme, on a mandatory basis, that goes further than the current definition?

I note that—perhaps the Minister can confirm this—although a local authority has discretion to use a definition wider than the current one, it will be a long process for an authority to exercise that discretion. The process involves deciding that the current arrangements do not work, going to consultation, looking at whether any other arrangements could be made to work apart from the extension of the licensing scheme to other types of properties, and then getting approval from a national authority to go ahead with the scheme. There is no wording in the legislation, as it stands, that says on what grounds that approval might be given or withheld.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, once a local authority has shown itself responsible enough to be prepared to do some additional licensing, the fact that it then has to go back to the Government for approval is hardly along the lines of new localism?

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I tend to agree that it is a rather odd discretion that is given and then virtually taken away, without any specific indication as to the basis on which the national authority can refuse a local authority's request. Can it refuse only if the local authority has not followed the process properly, or can it simply refuse because it does not consider it to be a good idea in that particular local authority area? It would be interesting to know the precise basis on which national authorisation can be refused.

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's definition that it has to be one of two criteria: it is either a property of three storeys or it is one with four or more people. According to the amendment, as I understand it, it would not be necessary to meet both conditions. The Minister must accept that there could be two-storey properties with many people living in them—perhaps a dozen. What happens if two properties have been knocked into one, which sometimes happens in HMOs? Those properties present a potential risk. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman read out some fire risk figures, which show that nearly half of the deaths due to fires in HMOs occurred in two-storey properties.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I should like to cite an example, from the London borough of Croydon. In Brigstock road a two-storey detached house—formerly a hostel—is now used as bed-and-breakfast accommodation for homeless people. It has 13 occupants in single rooms and a high turnover of predominantly vulnerable residents—that is, young people and persons with mental health problems and/or drink or drug problems. The property has a long history of poor management and overcrowding.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I think that that sort of property should be in a national licensing scheme. It would not take a major change—other than a few words—to ensure that properties of that type are automatically included. Changing the word ''and'' to ''or'' is very important in this context. There could be properties of very different construction—three storeys with only four people living in them, for instance—but, according to the Government proposals, they would not be covered either. I am particularly worried about two-storey properties with a large number of people in them. There are many such properties in the Sheffield area, unlike in London, where three-storey HMOs are more common.

My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale mentioned basements. I am worried; is a basement not a storey, even though it is below ground? Perhaps the Minister will explain very clearly how that lies within the definition. Any property that consists of a basement and two other storeys should be included in any national definition. Those are the properties that cause real problems: basements are often very difficult to escape from in the event of fire, for example. We should consider the issue of such properties very seriously.

Will the Minister also deal with the issue of attic garrets? Is a one-room attic considered to be a storey if it is above two other storeys? Again, there are all sorts of potential risks. If the landlord boards up the top storey of a three-storey property and no-one lives in the top storey, does that fall within the definition or not? What is a storey, for these purposes? Is it a storey that must be habitable? Those issues will concern all of us who are anxious to ensure that the most vulnerable people in the most vulnerable properties are covered by the legislation.

Finally, when the Minister responded to the Select Committee's reservations and comments on those areas, he said that the definition, and how it was working, would be subject to review. Could he be more specific? It is nice to have a ministerial promise that we will have a review, but does he think that a proper review should take place one or two years after the legislation is enacted? Such a review should assess the situation and should be debated in Parliament. If the Minister is not prepared to look again at the matter at this stage, the review would be an opportunity for proper public consideration of how those definitions work out in practice within a given period of time.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

I, like all the previous speakers, have some reservations about the question of three storeys and five people. I also welcome the briefing note that we have had from Shelter; it is an excellent and concise document.

My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale and I are part of the Labour group of seaside MPs. The group believes that HMOs are the key issue in the regeneration of 50 seaside towns. My constituency contains the town of Rhyl which, 40 years ago, had one of the richest wards in Wales—the west ward of Rhyl. However, over that 40-year period that ward has become the poorest of the 865 wards in Wales, and HMOs have brought that about. My

colleagues on the Labour group of seaside MPs would welcome the provision, and would see it as a great improvement. However, there are issues that need ironing out and to which careful consideration must be given. There are 900 HMOs in my home town, Rhyl, and the vast majority—certainly the worst ones—would be covered by the definition.

I return to the issue of basements and attics. I believe that basements containing electricity supplies and boilers are a big fire risk. The figures show that many of the deaths resulting from fires in HMOs take place, not in the room where the fire occurred, but in the room above. If there are four storeys—a basement, two storeys and an attic—fire can occur in any one of those.

I hope that the Minister will have a review. It is important that we proceed slowly and carefully at first. The limited actions that my own council has taken to try to introduce licensing have been fiercely opposed by the landlords' lobby—it is a well-organised group.

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) mentioned several times that investors in HMOs need to know from the outset—from this Committee meeting today—whether to invest their money. My concern is not with the investors, but with the tenants who live in the HMOs. I would go so far as to say that if people are prepared to invest in quality HMO accommodation, they should welcome the guidelines that we shall issue, and should welcome licensing. If not, I think that they should get out. Far too many people have made money out of misery and become millionaires on the backs of poor people living in that type of accommodation.

At this stage, I welcome the proposals that we are putting forward. However, I urge that the legislation be reviewed after a year or so, to ensure that it has bedded down. If it has, I believe that the provisions should be extended to other types of properties.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

Whether or not we agree with the proposed legislation, we can all agree that it should be clear and unambiguous. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale made a good point in asking for a definition of ''three storeys''. Does three storeys include a basement that contains residential accommodation? I would draw the distinction according to whether or not a floor contains residential accommodation.

That point was developed further by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), when he discussed loft conversions. It would help if the Minister were to include in the Bill, or in the regulations attached to it, a clear definition of three storeys.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

It is a question not merely of defining what currently constitutes residential accommodation in lofts and basements, but of making a judgment about the lofts and basements that will suddenly become residential accommodation if the Bill is passed.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. However, if the Minister is minded to include the number of storeys of a building as a qualification for licensing houses in multiple occupation, he must at least say whether a basement or loft conversion occupied for residential purposes would be included in the three storeys. The more I consider the matter, the more I come to the conclusion that a qualification dependent on the number of storeys is meaningless and unnecessary. I was ready to be persuaded by the Minister, but having listened to the debate so far I feel that he should drop the storeys qualification and depend entirely on numbers of people when giving power to housing authorities to introduce a licence for houses in multiple occupation.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

The proposals, which I hope will become law, are a great step forward in terms of licensing houses in multiple occupation. However, to paraphrase hon. Members, do we wish to have the entire hill or do we wish the Act to come out and end up as hillocks?

The important change, certainly as regards my local authority, is that the legislation will bring houses in which students live into the scope, or the definition in the first instance, of HMOs. One of the effects of the voluntary registration scheme entered into by the local authority in my city, under which scheme the authority was very active in enforcing standards in houses in multiple occupation, was that there appeared to be a subsequent boom in the number of houses available for students to rent. A number of landlords appear to have decided that because students were outwith the definition at that time, they might invest in homes in which students could live or convert HMOs from separate accommodation under the existing definition of HMOs to joint accommodation for students.

Under those circumstances, the intensity of occupation of those houses increased. Houses that previously could have been marketed as HMOs for non-students had two or three people added to them and became HMOs that were not defined as HMOs because students were living in them. A number of houses in student occupation will have a dense level of occupation; I do not allude to the academic skills of students. Those homes, quite often two-storey homes, will have seven, eight or nine students living in them because of the mechanism that I have described.

The legislation would provide the opportunity for the local authority to designate particular areas. In due course, I shall puzzle over the difference between ''an area in'' and ''an area of''. Under which circumstances will the national authority agree to the designation of additional areas, and what are the criteria on which it will base its decision?

I would imagine that, in addition to welcoming the wide practical increase in the scope for licensing HMOs, my local authority would want to look at areas of Southampton where there are large numbers of students in HMOs with a view to designating them too. Under what circumstances might regulations be introduced to define the way that the national authority will view local authorities when they make applications to extend areas? For example, would the

existence of a high concentration of students in newly designated HMOs be a prima facie reason for agreeing that additional licensing area?

This is a great step forward and I welcome it. I believe, along with other hon. Members, that there are serious problems of definition, which I hope will be clarified in regulations. For example, the circumstances in which local authorities that have large student populations living in HMOs may make the next move to additional licensing designation need to be made clear. If local authorities march their population metaphorically up the hill again, with the idea that they will be able to designate areas, and that designation is refused, it will exacerbate the problem of people moving into different forms of housing to evade the regulations. A system that is clear from the outset and enables that progress to be made is needed to make the Bill work as well as it can.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

The Labour party has been talking about doing what we are attempting to do today for a long time. We had promises in the 1997 and 2001 manifestos that we would license houses in multiple occupation but there was no qualification. I guess that most Labour party members would have assumed that any licensing scheme would cover all HMOs. Indeed, as recently as 1999 the DETR consultation paper stated:

''The Government is not convinced that all houses occupied by three or four persons should be exempted''

from HMO licensing. What has caused the Government to change their mind so that we now have a situation where, if the Bill becomes law in its current form, only 20 per cent. of HMOs will fall into the mandatory licensing category?

My second and final point concerns the position of vulnerable people—the issue on which I intervened on the hon. Member for Ludlow. We are looking after more and more vulnerable people in the community these days. People who are rehoused from large institutions or elderly people who are kept in the community rather than in residential or nursing homes are mainly looked after in the social housing sector, either by a local authority or a registered social landlord of some sort. Nevertheless, a small minority of private landlords make their properties available for people with special needs. Incidentally, so do charities.

Can my right hon. Friend assure the Committee that the majority of vulnerable people, who are not in the social housing sector, will be covered by the Bill? Many landlords are looking after very vulnerable people—such as drug addicts, very elderly people, those with learning difficulties and, of course, the mentally ill. I know a house in Bolton that is organised by the charity Mind. It is a house in multiple occupation, admittedly with a warden on site, where schizophrenics are looked after. There are a number of properties like that in the charitable sector. I want to be assured that we do not miss any of these vulnerable people—if they are not covered by the mandatory licensing clauses, would the Minister assure us that local authorities will be given the powers to require landlords to license the properties?

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I have a number of questions that relate purely to definition, and I think they all relate to my own student days. Will the Minister clarify the types of property that we are talking about? First of all, will he tell us whether this particular clause touches on houses or flats in which the landlord himself or herself is living? This situation does arise from time to time. A student may be fortunate enough to have wealthier parents, who may have purchased a house or flat for them while they are at university, and they could be living there with other students. It may simply be that a landlord in a student area chooses to rent out parts of his or her home in order to gain extra income—I have seen nothing on the face of the Bill that answers that question for me.

When I was a student at the university of London many years ago, I lived in a flat in a property that was probably about five or six storeys high. The property had a front door as the entrance, and then there were several contained flats, in some of which staff of the university lived. When I think back to that property, I am not sure whether the Bill would have applied to a flat in that building, of five or six storeys, occupied partly by students and partly by university staff.

Lastly, in common with many students I spent some time in a university hall of residence. I presume that these are not covered by the Bill in any way, but I would also welcome clarification from the Minister on that point when he replies.

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

I wanted to ask the Minister for clarification. In view of the interaction with the clause that we shall debate shortly, which covers the exemption of properties owned or managed by local authorities, registered social landlords and so on, I should be grateful if the Minister would help me with a definition.

The type of example that worries me can be found in my constituency and many others—indeed, in my own street. That is a street property that is three, four or five storeys high, with a single front door leading into a common entrance, and a single set of stairs with doors leading off to separate properties. There is mixed tenure, so in some instances there may be a property divided into flats where the local authority owns and manages three of the four, but one has been purchased on a lease and may be sub-let. Even more frequently, the majority of flats within such a building will be privately owned, but there will be one or two owned or managed by RSLs.

I am unclear in my mind as to whether the existence of properties managed by RSLs or local authorities in that single dwelling would exclude the dwelling from the definition because they would tip it into the higher household number, or above the three storeys. One of the other categories on which I would seek clarification is what happens in instances where an RSL is temporarily managing a property—sometimes for only a few months to provide temporary accommodation for a homeless family—in a single property that is otherwise entirely privately owned and would not fall within the definition.

3.30 pm

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Thanks, but no thanks for calling me, Mr. Pike.

This interesting debate has evoked much passion. All Committee members have had distressing experiences of the worst examples of mismanagement, often affecting very vulnerable people.

A lot of questions have been asked, and I propose to respond to them thoroughly, although I hope that I will not have to equal the hour and 5 minutes that the debate has taken so far. In the circumstances, I hesitate to announce my intention—with the indulgence of the Committee—to give the same kind of overview of part 2 as I gave of part 1. I think that the Committee found that helpful—I owe that observation to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney). Although our system of legislation by amendment offers the opportunity to probe details and raise issues of great concern, it sometimes distracts us from the big picture.

As briefly as possible—and certainly for not more than a few minutes—let me introduce the Government's approach and discuss in a little more detail than we did on Tuesday about the nature of the private rented sector. The sector accounts for about 2.2 million dwellings in this country, or about 10 per cent. of the housing stock in England. Although it is associated with some of the worst problems of poor-condition properties and poor management standards, it includes many dwellings that are maintained and managed to a high standard. Despite its small size, the private rented sector plays an important role in both national and local housing markets, providing flexibility and choice. The Government's policy is to support and foster its growth.

The average age of the sector's tenants has fallen, as it accommodates more young professionals who are unable to buy, and the increased number of students. The latter have been at the forefront of this debate, and I propose to discuss them in due course. The private rented sector is valuable because it is the first rung of the housing ladder—much of it is starter housing. In the past 12 years, the proportion of tenants under 30 has risen from 29 per cent. to 40 per cent., and the proportion of tenants over 60 has fallen from 33 per cent. to 13 per cent.

The Housing Act 1988 removed security of tenure and rent control for tenancies starting after that date. It introduced the assured shorthold tenancy, which has now become the norm: that afforded a minimum security of tenure for six months, followed by the prospect that the landlord or tenants could terminate the tenancy at no fault on either side at two months' notice. I will discuss the effect of those provisions in more detail later, but the immediate effect was a growth in the private rented sector from a low of 8 per cent. to the 10 per cent. I quoted earlier, where it has remained ever since.

The fact is that the private sector is now a much-attenuated element in our housing provision. In the early 1900s it accounted for the bulk of housing; just

before the second world war it stood at 57 per cent. of housing; and it still accounted for 32 per cent. in the early 1960s.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the unintended and unfortunate consequences of the growth in shorthold tenancies is that many families with children are reluctant to go into or remain in the private rented sector, because they want to bring up their children in places with security of tenure? It is because of that lack of security that one of the trends in recent years has been a significant movement out of the private rented sector, with people coming under the local authority via the homelessness route, or finding other types of accommodation.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I always defer to my hon. Friend in housing matters. I am certain that she has observed that phenomenon in her constituency, where, paradoxically, there has been a reduction in the number of young families going into private rented accommodation. I am aware that there are two Westminster MPs on the Committee. There has been an extremely rapid expansion in the private rented sector in Westminster in the past decade: it contains the largest number of private rented accommodations—28,000 or 29,000 properties—of any borough in the country.

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

Short lets.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Short lets, my hon. Friend says. Let me not be diverted down that path.

The effects of the Housing Act 1988 and the impact of increasingly mobile younger tenants have led to a huge annual turnover in the private rented sector. Some 42 per cent. of private tenants have been in their homes for less than a year, compared with 11 per cent. of social tenants and 7 per cent. of owner-occupiers. As I said yesterday, although it is not of my coinage, the sector remains a cottage industry. For many landlords it is a part-time occupation to go with the day job. For a job for which there is already a mass of statutory provision, there is a notable lack of training and professionalism. According to our recent survey of private landlords, barely 15 per cent. of them belong to a landlords' body that keeps them posted on training opportunities, good practice and legal matters. I will return in due course to improving professional standards in the sector.

The survey of private landlords by Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which was conducted as part of the 2001 English house condition survey, has just been published. Its key findings were that two thirds of privately rented dwellings are owned by private individuals, two thirds of private individual landlords typically have other paid employment, and about 40 per cent. derive more than a quarter of their income from rent. Most see their property as a longer-term investment. Dwellings let by companies and other organisations account for less than one third of privately rented dwellings, and only 15 per cent. of private rented dwellings are run by companies as a primary means of revenue generation, rather than as longer-term investments for various purposes. The

proportion of landlords letting only a single property increased from 24 per cent. in 1994 to 30 per cent. in 2001. As I said yesterday, the average number of properties owned by landlords stands at four, down from nine in 1994. That statistic is important in understanding the context of our proposals on the private rented sector.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) talked about bad-landlordism. There are lots of bad landlords, but among professional landlords only a small minority are active villains. Most landlords and tenants get on well. The survey of English housing shows that 68 per cent. of tenants renting from social landlords are satisfied with them, but 79 per cent. of tenants renting privately are satisfied with theirs. Our intention in the Bill is not to bash the landlord with more regulation. With licensing, the Government are targeting the worst conditions: it is not our intention to license the whole private rented sector.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Before the Minister leaves behind the two figures he quoted, he should take account of the fact that the expectations of RSL or council sector tenants are higher than those of private tenants. Many Committee members have experience of that. Private tenants often do not expect to be in a property for very long—they may be students, people who are only renting for six months on a temporary job assignment, or others in a similar situation. The expectations of private tenants are therefore lower and more easily satisfied. The Minister needs to bear in mind a few of the caveats that go with those figures before they are set in concrete.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. There may well be some truth in his comments. The fact remains that 20 per cent. of tenants express dissatisfaction with their landlords. However, I do not claim to be as familiar with the psychology of tenants in the private rented sector as the hon. Gentleman evidently is.

I have presented a picture of a private rented sector that needs to grow on the basis of housing need, quality and sound standards of management. It should also provide a sound investment. It needs more professional standards of management, as some of the worst conditions can be found in the larger HMOs. Reduced security of tenure arising from the 1988 Act means that many of the least-advantaged tenants have limited scope to negotiate the terms of the standards of their accommodation. In other words, they need a champion.

Mandatory licensing of the highest-risk HMOs is provided by part 2 of the Bill. It fulfils our manifest commitment to extend HMO licensing. Let me illustrate the rationale behind our proposal of mandatory licensing for HMOs of three storeys or more that have five or more occupants, as hon. Members may wish to press me on that matter.

Such HMOs have the worst level of risk. Sixteen per cent. of HMO occupants live in HMOs of three or more storeys, but 52 per cent. of fire deaths occur in such properties. Conversely, although 48 per cent. of

fire deaths in HMOs occur in one or two-storey properties, 84 per cent. of the HMO population live in such properties. A distinctive phenomenon is clear: when the larger types of houses are in multiple occupation, the levels of risk as exemplified by fire fatalities is distinctly higher than in other types of HMO—I will discuss the evidence and views of Entec in due course—although that is not to deny that there is risk and experience of fire fatalities in other sorts of HMO.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I take my right hon. Friend's point that his definition includes most of the highest-risk properties. However, in their 1996 and 1999 consultation papers, the Government were prepared to include many more properties that may also have posed a risk. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East made that point. Why have the Government changed their mind?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I will address that issue in due course. I certainly do not intend to shirk it.

We are now treading on new ground, as we all acknowledge. In that context, we have to take into consideration two sorts of burdens: the burdens that the process will place on landlords, and the burdens that we are placing on local authorities, about which I will say a word in due course. In introducing the new regime and treading on this new ground, we have to bear in mind the fragility of the private rented sector. It seems appropriate to tackle an obvious cause of danger in the private rented sector—the HMO sector—and to do so through a compulsory licensing regime, the effect of which will be to make it much easier for local authorities to identify risk in such properties. The first thing that a local authority will want to look at as part of the licensing process is the level of hazard. The licensing regime will throw up far more evidence of the risks in HMOs that is not apparent at this stage.

It is reasonable to make it clear now, but I will repeat it later—that we are not contemplating an extension of the system, at least not from the centre; we are content to leave it to local authorities to make that case. However, if urgent action is clearly needed in a new and sensitive area, the Government will look at the matter in a fair and reasonable fashion. In due course we will let hon. Members have the criteria that will apply when applications for additional licensing are judged.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister uses fire risk to justify the Government's choice of licensing. Fire is a serious and important matter, but the guidance on the new system, to which I have referred several times, seems to indicate that the age of properties is particularly significant in terms of fire risk, and other information that third parties have made available to us—I mentioned the British Medical Association report ''Housing and health: building for the future''—cites overcrowding as a major factor in health risk. When

assessing what should be licensed, would not the degree of overcrowding and the age of the property be criteria at least as good as the height of the property, which seems to be the basis on which the Minister is proceeding?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

It is part of the basis on which we are proceeding. Our decision to target properties of three storeys and more with five or more occupants is based not on a visual response to the height of the property, but on a reasonably scientific analysis of the level of risk emanating from those properties. If our aim is to protect those who live in apparently the riskiest sector of the HMO market, it is reasonable to introduce a mandatory licensing regime for such properties.

Geraldine Smith (Labour, Morecambe and Lunesdale)

In my experience, the best landlords are those who live in their own premises and rent out a few rooms or flats. There are many such people in my area. Families living in large houses often decide to rent to one or two people. What would happen if a family of four living in a three-storey house rented to two further people? The house would have more than five occupants, but most would be members of the landlord's family.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) asked whether, under the description in the Bill, an HMO that was occupied by the landlord would still fall within the mandatory licensing system, and the answer is yes. However, hon. Members should remember that we are talking about households. One individual can be described as a household, as can the four members of what the Bill defines as a family. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Minister has prayed in aid the Entec report, and the maths strongly suggest that properties of three or more storeys are at significantly higher risk from fire than two-storey properties—so why the reference to five people? The report makes no reference to the number of people living in a property; it is all about the number of floors. Four people living in a three-storey property are at just as much danger as five people. If the Minister is so convinced of his argument, why will he not remove the reference to ''and five people''?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

What a very good question—[Laughter.] However, inspiration has winged its way to me, so my desperate search for it was slightly ill-judged. I am now in a position to answer that question, but if colleagues will kindly allow me, I will complete my tour d'horizon before replying to their questions. I do not want to strain the Committee's patience, because we want to make progress, although I am not suggesting that there has been any procrastination so far—quite the contrary.

In addition to providing for mandatory licensing of the highest-risk HMOs, the Bill will ensure that the standards of tenancy relations management and property management employed by a landlord or agent are at the heart of licensing. It will further ensure that the least-advantaged tenants in such properties can have their rights enforced without risking eviction.

They will be able to look to the local authority to be their champion. Above all, licensing will identify to local authorities the HMOs and their landlords, so that the health and safety measures in part 1 can be targeted on the worst cases.

Licensing of higher-risk HMOs is clearly envisaged for properties that have three or more storeys and which house five or more people who constitute more than one household. Conditions placed on landlords under licensing arrangements will ensure that minimum standards of management are met and maintained by, for example, ensuring that gas and electrical appliances are safe, and that smoke alarms are maintained in proper working order.

I accept that the management of some smaller HMOs may be a concern. In areas where such concerns are widespread, licensing could offer a solution. In such circumstances, following local consultation and with the approval of the appropriate Minister, local authorities will be able to extend licensing to other types of HMO. In due course, I shall produce details of the criteria on which the Minister will make that judgment. In all cases, licensees will need to show that they are fit and proper persons to manage the property and that arrangements are in place to ensure that adequate management standards are met.

That completes my presentation of the big picture. I hope that I have been able to answer the points that colleagues have raised in interventions. I now propose to deal with the points that they made in their speeches. I will do that in order and I will attempt to deal with each point. My model in such matters, as I observed when I served on the extremely long Railways Bill Committee in 1993, is the then Minister of State for Public Transport, Department of Transport and MP for Kettering, now Lord Freeman. He was so meticulous in his responses that he succeeded in defusing all passion in a rather impassioned Bill Committee. Indeed, Lord Freeman was famous for saying, during a reply to a debate on the Floor of the House, ''and eleventhly''—[Laughter.]

I may have to go a bit further than that, but I have not kept a tally of the number of observations made. I will try to deal with them reasonably dispassionately. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Poole tabled a group of probing amendments, but it seems to me that the proposals contained therein have some interesting implications for the Conservative party.

Dealing first with what the Government said in their manifesto commitment, I say to the hon. Gentleman that during our consultations we clearly said that we did not exclude the possibility of applying the measures more widely. It is for the Government to make a judgment based on the evidence, and it is important that they consider the impact of their measures. As I have said, we are creating a new regime that clearly imposes new burdens on local authorities.

The Committee should not underestimate the scale of the task that we are asking local authorities to perform in the proposed mandatory regime. We are asking that approximately 300,000 HMOs come within the licensing regime. As we have said, since the

1988 Act was passed, it has been possible for local authorities to implement registration schemes of their own. Two thirds have done so, but one third have not, so for a third of our local authorities the Bill represents a new demand. Two thirds have registration regimes, but because the regimes are discretionary, they are variable. Many are registration schemes pure and simple, without any element of control. We are imposing a new burden on local authorities and have to take that into account.

I mentioned the figure of 300,000 HMOs. I was interested to discover that an authority such as Nottingham unitary council, which runs a registration regime, estimates it licenses 100 HMOs a year. That is quite a small number. At least one Nottingham MP would like the regime to be greatly extended, presumably involving greater numbers of HMOs than hitherto being brought within the system. It is interesting that a good, large authority such as Nottingham reckons to bring 100 HMOs a year into its licensing registration regime. That gives members of the Committee a flavour of the extra demands that we are likely to place on local authorities, and certainly would place on them if we widened the mandatory regime.

I illustrated the clear evidence base for the Government focusing on properties of three or more storeys with five or more occupants. We have no wish to impose unreasonable burdens on landlords. I cannot make a commitment to extend the system—although I have been enticed along that path by the hon. Member for Ludlow—as that would send out the wrong signals to the private rented sector. However, I draw the Committee's attention to the scope for additional licensing, which we shall debate under the next clause—if we ever get there.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Will the Minister give way?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

This is democracy in action. I give way to the hon. Member for Ludlow.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Minister said that he will not be enticed into widening the system, but, because of the difficulties for local authorities, in the first stage he might not want to include too many properties. Can he say whether, perhaps in a year or two, he will revisit the regulations to include more properties? He should be able to say whether that is completely out of the question—which I am sure would reassure some property landlords—or whether the Government intend to review the scheme. If they review it and decide to widen the scheme beyond those local authorities that take it up, many people will understand the logic of doing that step by step, so that it is not overloaded on day one. I should very much appreciate it if the Minister would make it clear whether this is as far as we go or whether more can be done.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. The Minister referred to reaching the next clause. I am mindful of reaching the next amendment. What I said about next Tuesday would apply equally to today. It has been a good debate and nobody has been out of order, but I am mindful of the time.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I, too, am extremely mindful of the time and I do not want to strain the Committee's patience, so, with its indulgence, I shall attempt to deal with the issues that have been raised.

The hon. Member for Ludlow asked about a possible review. We say in the regulatory impact assessment that we will carry out such a review within three years of implementing the mandatory licensing regime, and that we shall do. That may throw up new conclusions and proposals, but I make no commitment now to extending the licensing regime. The Bill is highly permissive and allows local authorities to make their own cases for additional licensing.

I should say a word about studentification, to use the hon. Gentleman's word, as a number of hon. Members have raised that issue. As I attempted to say on Second Reading, the provisions of the Bill are about the management of properties; they are not about determining where people live or who lives in what property. The Bill is about the quality of management of a property and the way in which that impinges on the property's physical condition and the occupants' behaviour. I am aware of how many hon. Members are concerned about the impact of large concentrations of students in their localities, and the use of additional licensing regimes on properties primarily occupied by students has been mentioned. Such extensions of the HMO licensing regime would be justifiable if a local authority could demonstrate that there was a generic problem, linked to the management of houses occupied by students, with either the quality of the properties or the students' behaviour.

I do not want to vilify students' behaviour, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) did not want to make any adverse observations on the mental faculties of students. It seems true that areas of concentrated student populations are characterised by criminality, but students are often its victims rather than perpetrators. There may be an argument about—

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

High jinks?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I was trying to find the right way to refer to drinking, as there might be issues of inebriation.

A serious problem with the way that student accommodation was dealt with would have to be demonstrated. That is not to say that there are not serious problems associated with concentrations of student population. Hon. Members have spoken about how such areas threaten public services, health facilities, schools, local post offices and other such public service amenities. However, the Bill is not about who lives where, but about the quality of management, the physical condition of properties and the behaviour of the occupants. Our response to studentification is to

suggest that local authorities should consider accreditation schemes, which are extensively employed, and any changes that could be achieved through planning policy.

We want to encourage greater collaboration between university authorities and local authorities. As a model for collaboration, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department for Education and Skills will work together on how to develop such an approach and encourage greater co-operation at a local level. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education has agreed to meet me to discuss those matters, although the meeting is not imminent. I suspect that he has other preoccupations at the moment.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale for her welcome and congratulations on the Bill. She asked why it did not refer to eight occupants instead of two storeys and said that conditions in houses in her constituency that have two storeys and eight occupants might be appalling. As I have said, if there is a general problem, it will be for the local authority to develop an additional licensing proposal. If that is a substantive case, I am sure that the Government will consider it sympathetically. We are basing our mandatory regime on the evidence base to which I have drawn the Committee's attention on more than one occasion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale asked about basements and houses of two storeys with garrets or lofts on top. Other hon. Members asked whether a basement would be subject to mandatory licensing. Under subsection (3), the Government will prescribe by regulation the number of storeys that will be covered by mandatory licensing. We propose three-plus storeys with five-plus persons, as my hon. Friend knows. We shall consult on draft regulations, but we see no inherent reason to exclude basements from the definition of the number of storeys. Equally, in response to questions about lofts with dormer windows being subject to mandatory licensing, the Government will prescribe what will be covered. If a loft is used as a habitable space, we see no inherent reason to exclude it from the definition of the number of storeys.

I gather from the body language of my hon. Friends the Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale and for Vale of Clwyd—the seaside Members—that they find that acceptable.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

I should like to put it on record that we are both grateful for that.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If I may say so, I am especially grateful to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale for raising with me their concerns on the basis of the Shelter report, so that I could more properly deal with them in the debate. I should like to put my gratitude on the record. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale talked about her experience at my hands as the Government's

accommodation Whip. I must say that dealing with the nation's housing problems is a doddle compared with MPs' accommodation issues.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I have been speaking for 40 minutes. I promised myself and the Committee not to go on for more than an hour in response to an hour's debate. If the hon. Gentleman is very insistent, I shall come back to him. However, would he allow me to turn to the issues raised by other hon. Members?

The hon. Member for Poole said—I made a careful note of it—that he felt that there was a good argument in favour of extending mandatory licensing. I find that slightly unusual coming from a Conservative Member. However, throughout our proceedings, the hon. Gentleman has demonstrated a concern for the vulnerable, which I am tempted to say is more characteristic of the past rather than present leadership of the Conservative party. He asked whether our proposals were too restrictive of the types of HMO that the Government want to be licensed, and was perhaps tempting me down a path.

I should repeat that the Government are determined that those most at risk are brought under the mandatory system. We do not have a wide agenda, but we are content to allow local authorities to make the case for the extension of licensing regimes. That is a practical commitment to our belief in decentralisation, for which I offer no apology. The hon. Gentleman asked me for estimates of the wider application of the mandatory licensing regime. We have not made those estimates because we have not thought it necessary. I remind him and other members of the Committee that we are focusing on bringing approximately 300,000 premises into the new licensing regime, and we believe that to be a sufficient challenge for local authorities.

As I said, 2.2 million people live in the private rented sector. Extending the new licensing regime to cover the whole of that sector, as hon. Members have called for in the debate, would impose very great demands on the resources of local government. We see no reason to impose extra regulation on the great majority of landlords who are perfectly decent people and probably do their best, although standards could be more professional.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I have restrained myself as the right hon. Gentleman recommended, but it is important to pin the matter down. I was at pains to point out that we must balance the interests of landlords, and the pressures and burdens that we place on them, with protection of the vulnerable people to whom he referred. To that end, surely it is important that the licensing regime focuses on vulnerable people in the most effective way possible, and surely it is better to consider overcrowding than the physical dimensions of the property. The Minister has conceded that two-storey houses with basements will be licensed, but that two-storey houses without basements will not, regardless of how many people live in them. In fairness to landlords and tenants, is it not important that we

focus on the problem and not use this broad brush, which will affect numerous perfectly decent landlords and may not protect those people in the greatest jeopardy?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I have already said that when we draw up the regulations we will be perfectly willing to consider including basements in the three-storey definition. I remind the hon. Gentleman that part 1, which we recently finished debating, contains specific provisions for dealing with overcrowding in local housing stock, which will include HMOs. I also remind him that the practical benefit of the mandatory licensing regime is that, perhaps for the first time, it enables the local authority to identify HMOs in its locality, which it will then inspect according to the criteria of the housing, health and safety rating system with a view to identifying hazards, of which overcrowding is one.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe asked me many questions, and I am grateful to him for giving me notice of his intention to press me hard on these matters, which he certainly did. It gave me an opportunity to read the comments that he made in the debate on the Queen's Speech in which he talked about his concerns. I am also grateful to him for at least one and a half cheers.

My beloved ministerial colleague, the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire, has been prayed in aid more than once in this debate, and the Committee will recall that he argued during debates on the Housing Act 1996 that excluding small HMOs from registration schemes was not justified. He was absolutely right. The 1996 Act amended the Housing Act 1985, which provided for HMO registration schemes and their approval. The Committee should recall that nothing in those Acts excluded small HMOs from registration schemes. It should be stressed, however, that the power for local authorities to have registration schemes was discretionary, and many local authorities have not used it.

However, as with the Bill's power to designate an area for additional licensing, there is no constraint on the size of the HMO that could be covered. I want to say more about our arrangements for that, but the Committee should remember that the Bill goes further than previous legislation in clarifying the procedures through which local authorities may extend mandatory licensing through additional licensing regimes. We are also enhancing their powers, if they choose to go down that path.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe was probing the apparent shift of Government position since our statement in the 1999 consultation paper that we were not convinced that all houses occupied by three or four persons should be exempt from licensing. That was not a commitment to bring mandatory licensing in for such houses, but at least it showed a laudable open-mindedness. However, I say to my hon. Friend that matters have moved on. First, the health and safety rating system, which is to apply to all properties, has been developed. Secondly, following consultation, the Government decided that local authorities were best placed to judge whether

smaller HMOs were to be licensed. As I said before, the Government are concerned to strengthen the role of local authorities.

In his contribution to debate on the Queen's Speech and in this debate, my hon. Friend raised the fact that there are many two-storey houses in multiple occupation in Sheffield. However, I say again that for the purposes of the Bill such properties fall within the definition of HMOs. They do not fall within the scope of our proposals for mandatory licensing, but they can be subject to additional licensing if the local authority thinks that appropriate. If Sheffield has a problem with two-storey HMOs, it can propose an additional licensing scheme. Problems with such HMOs in Sheffield may not affect other towns, cities and boroughs, so it seems inappropriate to burden other authorities with an obligatory regime for matters that may not be regarded as important in their area. The great city of Sheffield is not the world, but if there is a serious and demonstrable problem there, that can be dealt with by the additional licensing regime set out in the Bill.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

That argument sounds suspiciously like the one used by the then Minister with responsibility for housing to justify having no national licensing scheme at all in the 1996 Act. I am still unclear about the criteria used to judge the appropriateness of an additional licensing submission from a local authority.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

My hon. Friend poses a question about criteria. Local authorities will naturally have to consider carefully their reasons for seeking additional HMO licensing. They will have to identify the problem that they are seeking to address through additional licensing. They will need to look at the justification for the scope of their proposed designation—whether it should cover all or part of the local area. They will need to consider that justification, how their proposals mesh with their other policies, and whether alternative measures could deal with the problem that they have identified. Above all, they will need to bring all those considerations together in making their case when they consult local stakeholders. In seeking confirmation and a designation, they will need to show that they have dealt adequately with the representations received as a result of the consultation and have considered any necessary modifications to their scheme.

I have set out the sort of considerations that the local authority will have to bear in mind when proposing additional licensing. If the national authority were satisfied that those conditions had been met, it could approve the application for additional licensing. I do not think that that is unduly burdensome on local authorities. If they give due consideration to the criteria and the consultation is carried out, confirmation by the national authority ought easily to be given. We are not in the business of creating impediments, although obviously we need to ensure that the applications are justified.

I make no apology for saying that it seems reasonable for decisions on the extension of the licensing regime to be left in the hands of local authorities, which are best placed to judge local problems and issues.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

If my right hon. Friend is saying that, provided that the local authority goes through the procedure laid out in the Bill, there would be no second-guessing by the Minister or anyone else about whether local authorities understand their area better than anyone else, I accept his point, because I think that by and large they do. It is important that the Minister puts on record that no second-guessing will go on. Also, will he address the issue of the funding of the discretionary arrangement, and will he say whether that will be different from the funding available for the mandatory scheme?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am happy to put on record that, assuming that local authorities go through the process and fulfil those considerations or criteria, there certainly will be no second-guessing by the national authority. We want to be responsive to local circumstances.

I draw a parallel with part 3 of the Bill, which deals with selective licensing. We envisage that if a local authority demonstrates that there is a widespread problem with antisocial behaviour—not in HMOs, but in individual premises occupied by one family—a proposal could go before the national authority. The authority would then consider the proposal and respond to it. There is no second-guessing involved; we want to play this absolutely straight. If we did not see the case that many local authorities will have for coming forward with additional licensing proposals, we would not have put such provisions in the Bill. I cannot say fairer than that.

Briefly, because I have only two minutes left under my self-imposed limitation, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd for his general welcome. He has shown a positive response to my observations on placements. I hope that I have dealt with the issues raised on the same subject by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman).

My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test welcomed the Bill as a great step forward, but slightly qualified his remarks by describing it as a hillock rather than a hill—not that I took that personally. He also dealt with the issue of student concentrations. I hope that I dealt with that earlier. Student concentrations are not a criterion for a licensing regime per se, but the sorts of habitations that students occupy may be the basis for such an application. He asked about the criteria by which a national authority will judge applications for additional licensing. I attempted to answer that question in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East offered me his apologies for his absence. In the circumstances, rather than detain the Committee by

answering his questions in absentia, I think that it would be appropriate to drop him a note, which will, of course, be circulated to other Committee members.

I have dealt with the question about premises in which a landlord is resident. The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire asked whether halls of residence were covered. The answer is no, because we do not believe that it is necessary to apply the legislation to public bodies, such as universities, which we expect to behave in a way that is cognisant of the law and obedient. He also asked whether the legislation would apply to self-contained flats within premises. The answer to that is yes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) similarly asked whether the proposals will apply to mixed ownership of premises, such as both social and private ownership. There are certain qualifications in our proposals about the number of self-contained flats in an HMO of that description. If we are talking about premises that are wholly comprised of self-contained flats, the legislation does not apply. I will let my hon. Friend know in due course about premises of a certain number of self-contained flats as well as other dwellings with shared facilities. [Interruption.] I am not a lip-reader; indeed, I am practically nothing after an hour and five minutes on the subject.

I have a completely new speech to deal with the amendments tabled to clause 44, but I have no intention of burdening the Committee with that. I believe that I have answered the questions relating to the probing amendments, and I have sought to deal with the substantive issues raised by the other amendments. To my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, I can say only that I am in serious hope and expectation of answering her question.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I am sure that the Minister will be forgiven, as he has been going for more than hour on this subject. He has probably earned plenty of injury time with the number of interventions that he has taken.

At the start of his exposition, the Minister received some inspiration about the reason for the phrase ''and five or more'' people. I have been patiently waiting for that inspiration to be revealed. The Minister was strong on the idea that the critical factor was the three storeys. His inspiration might be on the left-hand side of his desk, where he put some information down. It is clear from the Entec report that the danger is the same for a property with three or more storeys and four people in it, as it is for a one-storey property housing five people. I had hoped that the Minister might pick that point up.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

In the maelstrom of responses to issues raised, I genuinely thought that I referred to the Entec report. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not having done so. He is wrong to say that Entec did not take cognisance of the issue of ''five or more''. Let me remind him that the 1997 Entec report on fire risks in HMOs concluded:

''The number of occupants influences the risk. Accordingly, it is valid to distinguish between HMOs on the level of occupation.''

It therefore lent ''broad support'' to the three- storey and five-person approach in the Housing (Fire Safety in Houses in Multiple Occupation) Order 1997. That is an Entec endorsement for our approach of three or more and five or more. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

I shall now attempt to return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. Certain poorly converted blocks of flats will fall under the HMO definition, and management regulations will apply in those cases.

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

Therefore, if a property does not count as an HMO because it has fewer than three storeys and five people, but the inclusion of a registered social landlord's property would take it over that level, will the whole property be counted as an HMO? It is a serious point because thousands of properties are in that category. They are street properties with a single front door and lobby, behind which are individual entrances—some RSL or council, some private, and some privately rented. The risk factor in many of those properties is high. The fact that many RSL tenants will have mental health or other problems means that the property becomes a risk. I want to be absolutely clear whether RSL and local authority properties are included when calculating the totals for defining an HMO.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her further clarification. That is a new one for the Government, or at least for this element of the Government. It is a serious question and I will undertake to write to her with the answer. I might also return to that point later in proceedings.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I call Mr. Syms.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I am glad that you remembered who moved the amendment, Mr. Pike. As I said a while ago at the beginning of proceedings, this is a probing amendment. The discussions of the past couple of hours will probably lead to quicker progress when we discuss other clauses, as we have covered so many issues. It is a remarkably difficult area to legislate for because of the problems of definition and the diversity of the sector. When the then Department of the Environment moved circular 12/93, which tried to define HMOs, much legal action followed.

Our concern on the Opposition Benches is for as much clarity as possible—that is only fair on local authorities and on those who have to apply the legislation—and we are not content. Although, with his usual courtesy and his long replies, the Minister has done a splendid job in a complex area, we are not happy with the definition. As the interventions of the hon. Members for Regent's Park and Kensington, North and for Ludlow have shown, many questions are outstanding. I shall ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw amendment No. 249, but our passions on the Opposition Benches have not been cooled. We believe in light regulation, but we also believe that clarity is important.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I admire the Minister for his Herculean task in summing up this crucial debate, during which he stated that a basement would be included as one of the storeys to be calculated. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that a basement will be included only if it is residentially occupied? The issue reinforces the need for the regulations, if not the Bill, to be absolutely clear so as not to cause confusion.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I thank my hon. Friend, who demonstrates his experience in both Parliament and the housing sector, for bringing that to our attention. The Minister has been asked a lot of questions on which he will have to reflect. He spoke about guidance. That is important, but we shall continue to be unhappy until we have further definition and clarity. Given the length of the debate, Mr. Pike, I doubt that you will allow us a stand part debate. However, my hon. Friends and I are so passionate about the matter that we are minded to vote against the clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move amendment No. 226, in

clause 44, page 29, line 13, leave out

'( ) a reasonable time'

and insert 'six weeks'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 251, in

clause 44, page 29, line 25, leave out '5' and insert '3'.

Amendment No. 234, in

clause 44, page 29, line 25, leave out '5 years' and insert '12 months'.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Amendment No. 226 would do exactly what the hon. Member for Poole has been talking about. By tabling it we are seeking clarification in the form of more detail from the Government through the setting of a time scale. At the moment, the clause states merely that the council should take ''a reasonable time'' to license the properties. Six weeks might be too tight or too loose. This probing amendment attempts to establish what the Government believe to be ''a reasonable time''. I am sure that local authorities have differing views. Some might think that it is a matter of weeks and others might hope for six months. I hope that the Minister will put on record what ''a reasonable time'' is.

The other two amendments also seek clarification. Amendment No. 234 has the support of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and relates to the inspection of licensed properties. It returns to the point about hazards in a property. I realise that if someone makes a complaint to the council, the council will respond under the housing health and safety rating system. However, private tenants often do not know their rights and might not even realise that they can ask the council to have their property inspected under the housing health and safety rating system. There ought to be a requirement that HMOs in particular are

inspected reasonably regularly. An inspection every 12 months might be too often; the Conservatives have suggested three years. The Government have proposed five years, which seems a fairly long period between inspections. Our proposals would require the local authority to ensure that there were no outstanding hazards or related actions required within 12 months of a landlord applying for a licence for an HMO. The Government should justify their five-year provision. I do not say that a period of 12 months is perfect, but five years is excessive.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

We have much sympathy with the amendment. The term ''reasonable'' needs to be defined, because it means different things to different people. Six weeks might be a little quick, but local authorities have to turn round planning applications within a certain window to give a reasonable service, and if somebody wants to be licensed, there is no reason why they, too, should not receive a decent service. Amendment No. 251 would reduce from five to three years the period within which there must an inspection. It is a probing amendment designed to focus on why the Government picked five years. Might the number of environmental health officers make authorities incapable of implementing part 1 in a shorter period? Is the question one of resources or the number of trained people? I would be interested to hear why a ''reasonable'' period was chosen instead of a fixed one, and why five years was chosen instead of three, six, two or whatever. That is what we are trying to tease out of the Minister.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

My hon. Friend has said what I was going to say, but I want to stress again that legislation should be clear and understandable. It is not clear or understandable to talk about ''a reasonable time''. There must be a fixed period. I am sure that the Minister knows from dealing with his local housing authority, as I know from dealing with mine, that what it considers to be a reasonable time is often not what the rest of us consider to be a reasonable time.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I support the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet. The provisions are another example of the general lack of clarity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole said, in its current state the clause is not worthy of our support, not because it does not contain good intentions or because the Minister has not done a good job of answering people's legitimate concerns, but because we have been all over the place in our uncertainty. We have been told that the local authority will have to deal with some things, while others will be dealt with in regulations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet pointed to another uncertainty. Landlords want a fair deal and so do tenants, which means being able to plan ahead with certainty about the Government's intentions. My hon. Friends are right about the important but small change to the Bill that we propose.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Subsection (5) places general duties on the local authority to make necessary arrangements to implement the licensing regime and ensure that licence applications made under subsection (5)(b) are dealt with within a reasonable period. Subsection (5)(c) requires local authorities to satisfy themselves as soon as reasonably practicable that no part 1 functions need to be exercised in respect of HMOs for which applications have been made. Subsection (6) makes it clear that a local authority must ensure that an HMO complies with the requirements of part 1 within five years.

So much for the provisions that we are dealing with: I now turn to the amendments. Amendment No. 226 would require local authorities to ensure that all applications for licences and other issues falling to be determined by them in relation to HMOs licensing should be determined within six weeks, rather than within a reasonable time as the clause currently provides. Local authorities should certainly aim to determine such matters within six weeks or less—I am happy to offer that ex cathedra directive. However, there will naturally be circumstances in which a local authority might need longer. For example, in determining whether to grant a licence, the authority may need more time in which to establish whether a landlord is a fit and proper person under clause 55—or, if he is not, whether the agent who manages the property on his behalf is fit. It may take time to establish who is the most suitable person.

Other circumstances that may cause an authority to need more than six weeks include determining whether it is satisfied, as regards subsection (5), that there is a serious hazard under part 1, and whether a property is suitable for multiple occupation as required under clause 54. Consideration of whether a landlord has followed suitable management practices with regard to clause 55 could also involve considerations that might take longer than six weeks to process.

Amendment No. 226 is unnecessary because any unjustifiable delay by the local authority can be the subject of judicial review by the High Court. Furthermore, clause 61(8) provides that no offence is committed if an application is still effective. That means that if a person has made an application to a local authority for a licence, he is not guilty of any offence for the entire period during which the application is being processed. It is in everyone's interests that all applications be processed as quickly as possible. However, it would be disadvantageous to landlords, local authorities and potential tenants to treat a failure to respond within six weeks as a deemed refusal.

The amendment proposes no sanction if, for some reason, a decision is not made within a six-week statutory period. If it were not a deemed refusal, which would trigger a right of appeal, there would be clear consequences to a delay. I fear that there are many examples of statutory periods within which local authorities must comply with obligations that are, regrettably, often not fully observed. I think of the 14 days within which payment of housing benefit must be made—something of which I am sure many

colleagues, at least those on the Labour Benches, have experience. I cannot, therefore, support amendment No. 226.

Amendments Nos. 234 and 251relate to local authorities' duties under subsections (5)(c) and (6)(b)—or, rather, they appear to do so, as amendment No. 234 seems to refer in error to clause 192. The duties of local authorities under clause 44 are to ensure that they do not need to exercise any part 1 functions in relation to the health and safety of premises in respect of which licensing applications are made to them, whether or not a full health and safety rating inspection is required. The amendments would require a local authority to do that within one year or three years, rather than five years as required by the Bill. Let me say again that local authorities should aim to determine such matters well within the five-year period of a licence. The requirements in subsection (5)(c)

''To satisfy themselves as soon as is reasonably practicable that there are no Part 1 functions that ought to be exercised by them''

need not involve a full inspection under the rating system. Nevertheless, a local authority would be expected to carry out a part 1 inspection within five years.

Local authorities might not have the resources to inspect all HMOs that are subject to licensing within the first few years. As I said earlier, we do not wish to add to their burdens by prescribing a shorter time scale. No penalties are prescribed for local authorities that fail to meet the five-year deadline, and the amendment does not propose any. The moral pressure on local authorities—not least from private tenants—will achieve a shorter time scale. If local authorities carry out their duty to consider health and safety issues in a conscientious way as soon as is reasonably practicable, category 1 hazards will be progressively eliminated from HMOs and, in the case of high-risk properties, prioritisation will ensure that it happens at the earliest opportunity.

I want local authorities to consider health and safety implications in high-risk properties as soon as is practicable, and I do not want licensing to be delayed because of that. I want licensing in place as soon as possible. It will improve management standards and ensure that the highest-risk HMOs and their landlords are identified for targeting under the health and safety rating system. Local authorities know the properties in their areas, and they can decide how best to carry out that duty.

A key purpose of HMO licensing is to ensure that landlords are fit and proper persons who follow a code of management practice that the Bill prescribes. Management licensing will also identify where the most at-risk HMOs are and ensure that they are targeted by the health and safety rating system. The message is that local authorities should get HMO licensing up and running; targeting, through the housing health and safety rating system, should follow at fairly short order.

For those reasons, I cannot support the amendments. I hope that I have clearly explained the approach that we have taken and the reasons why the amendments are unnecessary. I invite the hon. Member for Ludlow to withdraw them.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Minister's comments on amendment No. 226 were very useful. He made it clear that local authorities would generally be expected to do something in six weeks or less, which is a reasonable time. The fact that he has placed it on the record has made tabling the amendment worth while. We understand that there may be circumstances in which a six-week turnaround is not possible. However, with the Minister mentioning that a judicial review may be possible if a council does not take action quickly, his statement of what is considered reasonable is potentially very helpful, because such a review would consider what has been said in Committee. It is therefore a very welcome step forward.

The Minister is on slightly dodgier ground with amendments Nos. 234 and 251, because he is saying to tenants in HMOs that qualify for inspection, ''Don't worry, we are introducing a licensing scheme, but because we do not want to overwork local authorities it might be five years before someone comes around and checks whether the property you are in is safe. We will find out whether there is a fit and proper person to run it when we license them, but we could take five years to find out whether they have fit and proper properties.'' I realise that tenants, and perhaps local councillors and Members of Parliament, will put pressure on councils to take action a little more promptly than within five years. However, not every council is as responsive as people would like. One or two councils might regard the five years allowed as a convenient excuse to do very little initial inspecting, and to think about it in a few years' time.

There is always pressure on council tax, as we all know. I realise that an officer must be in place to carry out the health and safety rating, but the temptation to leave it until next year to employ the officer who will do the extra HMO inspections, because the council cannot afford the extra employee and council tax must be kept down otherwise the Deputy Prime Minister will cap it, might provide councils with a loophole in the work that they are supposed to do. Although I shall withdraw amendments Nos. 226 and No. 234, we may return to the issue.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I thought that I would have another go at reassuring the hon. Gentleman before he finished speaking. I am tempted to say, ''Oh, the impatience of youth.'' It is also the inconsistency of a party that goes out of its way to proclaim the need for the greatest autonomy on the part of local government, but which

does not hesitate to put the regulatory boot into local government at every opportunity, as we have seen repeatedly during our proceedings.

I say to the hon. Gentleman that in an ideal world all properties would be properly managed and free of hazards. The proposals in the Bill are a sensible attempt to get the best possible result. Licences will last for a maximum of five years. The requirement on local authorities is that they should check every high-risk HMO as early as possible, and at least during the lifetime of the licence.

The alternatives suggested by both amendments are highly undesirable. If local authorities have the resources to carry out checks on all their high-risk stock within one or three years, they will have to do so, as it will clearly be reasonably practicable so to do. Again, we want the process to be carried out in the most expeditious fashion, but we recognise that many authorities face issues relating to resources and the scope of the challenge.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Before I call Mr. Green, I should say for guidance that the amendment that was moved was No. 226. He has been asked to withdraw that, and I understand that he will do so. He has to indicate to me whether he wishes to press amendment No. 234 to a vote, but it was not moved.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I shall not press amendments Nos. 251 and 234 to a vote. I know that technically I can withdraw only amendment No. 226. The only reason why I shall not press amendment No. 234 to a vote is that we will probably return to the issue.

Although I understand the Minister's explanation about giving local authorities flexibility, I still fear that in some authorities, because everything is on an annual budget, there will be a temptation not to employ the extra officer that may be needed to get the work done until the authority is right up against the end of the five-year period. Its defence would be that it did not have the staff to do the work. The Minister talked about the work being reasonably practicable: well, if an authority has the officers to do the work, it can do it, but if it decides not to employ the officers to do the work that year and instead leaves it to the following year, that would seem to allow the council to get away with not doing it.

The Minister should not leave councils too many loopholes. Yes, we should give them freedoms and flexibilities, but when we are talking about a national, not a local, licensing scheme that applies to properties of three or more storeys and five or more occupants, we want to ensure that the work takes place as quickly as possible. I fear that the Minister may be leaving the gate open a little too wide. However, it is late in the day and I do not intend to detain the Committee further, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 5.