| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Martin (Portsmouth, South): I have some sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) and with her new clause. Those of us with constituencies which include many people living in multi-occupation property--especially students--well know the fears surrounding this issue. Those fears are well known to me, as a parent whose oldest child will in due course go off to university and find herself in such accommodation. Students are particularly vulnerable because their occupation is short term and because of their high turnover rate. That means that they cannot know when the appliance that they are using, or the fuse that serves it, was last inspected and passed as safe.
The hon. Member for Christchurch is therefore right, at a time when the Government are examining the matter, to urge the Minister to say something about the state of play. How are the Government's investigations going? What action do they propose to take to allay some of these fears?
A certificate on its own is not enough. There should be a notice attached or near to an appliance stating when it was last checked and found safe. There should be a sign near a flue stating when it was last swept and rendered safe. After all, the same has been required for fire appliances over the years. Fire appliances can remain in the same place for ages, which is why there must be written notices near them saying when they were last inspected to the satisfaction of the relevant expert. Gas appliances, flues and their fittings should definitely be the subject of a requirement to produce evidence of their continuing safety, to protect those whose short-term occupation of such accommodation puts them at risk.
Mr. Sutcliffe:
I concur with the last two contributions, although I am slightly surprised at the need to introduce this idea in this format. Admittedly, the Government are looking into the issue, but it has been with us for quite some time.
I know that British Gas produced a video about carbon monoxide poisoning which was aimed particularly at students. I hope that the Minister will include universities in his investigation as accommodation officers often encourage private landlords to house some of their student population. That applies particularly to students from abroad--at Bradford university, for instance. Many of the houses in which students find themselves contain appliances that have not been properly checked. Before any tenancy agreement is signed, it should be a prerequisite that satisfactory certificates of safety be produced; that is only common sense. Furthermore, that requirement should be included on the face of the Bill.
In my authority, environmental health officers cannot get around all the houses in multiple occupation for checks because there are simply too many. The problem
is addressed only when a tragedy happens, such as that in Hull. That case involved a negligent landlord who was imprisoned, but many people feel aggrieved that he had committed offence after offence. How long will it be before we can put such matters right? The Government push people towards the private rented sector, so they have a responsibility to ensure that people are in a safe environment. British Gas is aware of the position and, as I mentioned, it has made a video.
Mr. Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield):
I will not detain the House for long. I wish to thank the Minister because when we discussed fire regulations and other areas covered by new clause 4 I raised the question of the means of escape order and whether the Bill would introduce an inconsistency on means of escape orders. That point is relevant to our debate today. The Minister promised to write to me about that subject and I am grateful that he did so.
I wish to clarify with the Minister what he said in that letter, because it is important that we get it on the record. As I understand it, the Minister has said that there will still be an exclusion in the means of escape orders for houses with fewer than three storeys. I have some reservations about that, but I wish to clarify the position. Beyond that, the good news--if I understand the Minister's comments correctly--is that there will be less disparity between the two schemes in the criteria governing the inclusion of houses than was originally proposed.
The Minister's letter stated:
I wish to clarify that he means that there will be no contradiction between regulations relating to means of escape orders and those relating to houses in multiple occupation covered by the Bill.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I having a little difficulty relating his comments to new clause 4. They seem more relevant to new clause 9. Perhaps I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Burden:
I might have been able to raise the point on both new clauses, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I raised it at this point because new clause 4 deals with the safety of gas fires. The means of escape order specifically relates to fire regulations--
Mrs. Maddock:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burden:
I should like to answer you first,Mr. Deputy Speaker. When we discuss new clause 9,
Mrs. Maddock:
The hon. Gentleman could raise the point on Government amendment No. 56 when we come to it. I tabled an amendment to take out the word "knowingly". The Government agreed to take my amendment away and rewrite it. They have brought it back exactly the same and I commend their rewriting.
Mr. Burden:
The point on which I seek clarification is essentially simple. I think that the Minister has clarified it in writing, but I wish to put it on the record. My point is that if a house is covered by the registration criteria in the Bill, the same property should be covered by means of escape orders; there should be no contradiction between the two schemes. If the Minister can give that clarification I shall be content.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison):
I will deal later, if I may, with the point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) about fire escapes. I wish to deal first with the important contribution by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock).
Gas safety is a very important subject and I have much sympathy with the underlying concern expressed by the hon. Lady about promoting safety. I also understand the concerns expressed by other hon. Members in the course of the debate, which has been good, if short. I understand the concerns about students felt by parents of children going to university. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) made an important point, which was echoed by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) as it affects his constituency, Bradford university and Bradford students.
I believe that it will be helpful if I deal in a little detail with the regulations that concern gas safety, to which the hon. Member for Christchurch adverted. Duties on landlords to provide safe gas installations in rented accommodation are properly matters for the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1994. Those regulations require landlords, including landlords of houses in multiple occupation, to maintain gas appliances, flues and installation pipework in a safe condition; to arrange annual safety checks of appliances and flues using a CORGI-registered gas installer; and to provide records of those checks when tenants ask for them. The record must include the date of an inspection, the defects identified and any remedial action taken. Those requirements are compulsory for all landlords who rent property that comes within the scope of the regulations.
Managers of HMOs are also required by the management regulations to keep gas supply installations, and those for space and water heating, in good repair and working order. Environmental health officers, who enforce the management regulations, have been told to inform the Health and Safety Executive if they suspect that the gas safety regulations have been breached.
I naturally share the desire of the hon. Member for Christchurch to give tenants the information that they need to avoid potential death traps. The primary aim of
the regulations is to reduce gas-related carbon monoxide poisoning from dangerous gas fittings and blocked flues which, as the hon. Lady said, account for nearly 30 tragic deaths every year.
The hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned the recent, tragic case in Hull. I believe that the landlord in question had earlier been prosecuted by the Health and Safety Commission and he was also prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service. I understand that he was convicted of manslaughter--a criminal conviction, of course--and received a suspended sentence of 18 months imprisonment. The judge gave reasons why the sentence was suspended and said that an immediate term of imprisonment would be the likely outcome in other cases. That illustrates the serious manner in which the courts regard what is a serious offence. I am sure that anyone who has listened to the debate will have heard that serious approach echoed by the hon. Members who have contributed.
Many of the deaths have occurred in rented accommodation, such as HMOs, and I recognise the pressure, reflected in new clause 4, for a change in the law so that landlords are either required to supply evidence of annual safety checks without tenants first asking for it, or are required to display such evidence prominently in rented accommodation.
"our proposal at present is to cover all HMOs which might be subject to registration as described in clause 62".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |