| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish): What is the time scale for the review?
Mr. Clappison: That was to be my next point. I understand that the HSC will be producing a consultative document by March 1997 and that it intends to produce new regulations possibly by May or June 1997.
Mr. David Martin: Will my hon. Friend speed up that process? Talking about consultative documents makes it sound like next year or the year after that. Perhaps he will give the commission a kick where it hurts.
Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend, too, has the happy knack of anticipating my next remark. I was about to assure the House that in view of the concern expressed in the debate I intend to contact the commission to draw its attention, first, to the seriousness with which the House regards the subject and the requirement that an
advertisement be introduced and, secondly, to the concern that has been expressed about the time scale. I will draw the commission's attention to the debate. Indeed, I am sure that it would want to be aware of it. I shall ensure that the points made in the debate are reflected upon by the commission.
I hope that on the basis of my assurances the hon. Member for Christchurch will find it possible to consider seeking leave to withdraw the motion.
Mrs. Maddock:
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I was slightly more patient than some hon. Members in letting him respond to the debate. I hope that he will push the Health and Safety Commission to quicken its response.
Carbon monoxide poisoning is extremely sinister. We know that carbon monoxide is odourless and colourless, so it cannot be seen. There is a great lack of knowledge. I could go into the reasons why that is so, not least the shortcomings of science education, but I am sure that I would be ruled out of order.
The new clause is simple, but its implementation would solve many problems. I understand that if a review is taking place it is only right that we should wait until we hear what has happened, but I should not have been happy to wait until 1997. Too many people would be lost between now and then.
Mr. Bennett:
Does the hon. Lady accept that if the Government had any concern about these matters they could complete the process by September before students sign on for the next term?
Mrs. Maddock:
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and one that I hope the Minister will take on board.
It is important to help those tenants who may not want to push their landlords on these safety measures. The landlord may have told them, "It's all right." I regret that we are moving towards a time when more people will be living in temporary accommodation. They will be moving from time to time. When people do not have direct responsibility and they do not want aggravation with the landlord, they may not be happy to take action. It is important to understand that aspect and to ensure that it is the landlord's duty to provide a certificate.
Nevertheless, having listened carefully to the Minister, I do not intend to press the new clause to a Division.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Does the hon. Lady wish to withdraw the new clause?
Mrs. Maddock:
If it makes the procedure of the House easier, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
The choice rests with the hon. Member.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Raynsford:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We come to the extremely important issue of the licensing of multi-occupied houses. The purpose behind the new clause is to give the Secretary of State power by order to replace the provisions of clauses 63 to 67 with a national mandatory licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation.
Let us consider the scale of the problem. We know from research findings that the Government have published that there are about 638,000 multi-occupied houses in Britain. There are different types of such houses, and only about 111,000 are what we would describe as traditional HMOs. By that I mean houses that have been converted into bed-sits. There are about 100,000 shared houses and flats, 41,000 households with lodgers, 17,000 purpose-built multi-occupied houses, about 17,000 hostels, guest houses, boarding houses and bed-and-breakfast hotels, and about 352,000 buildings converted into self-contained flats. That makes a total of 638,000.
It is recognised that multi-occupied houses contain some of the worst housing and life-threatening conditions of any accommodation. The Government's consultation paper--I use no other source because no one, I hope, will dispute what it contains--was issued in November 1994. It made that very point. It stated that
It continued:
Let us put some flesh and blood on those relatively cautious official comments. According to the house condition survey, two fifths of houses in multiple occupation--traditional HMOs--are unfit for human habitation. Anyone living in one of those properties has a four in 10 chance of occupying a property that is unfit for human habitation.
Research undertaken by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation last year--it was undertaken by Geoffrey Randall, a very experienced researcher--revealed the risk of death from fire to be 28 times higher in a multi-occupied house than in the housing stock as a whole. That clearly explains the continuing high death toll in multi-occupied houses. The highest proportion of deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning--the issue was rightly highlighted by the hon. Member for Christchurch in moving new clause 4--is to be found in privately rented multi-occupied houses. There is, therefore, a concentration of severe problems.
Let us consider some of the human consequences. The hon. Member for Christchurch referred to the tragic case of Tracy Murphy, a 19-year-old student who was gassed by a defective appliance in the bed-sit that she was occupying in Hull in November 1993. She had lived in the flat, with her fiance, for between only four and five weeks. She usually telephoned her family every day. After members of her family had not heard from her for three days, they visited her, only to find her dead. Her fiance was away on business. Her blood had a 75 per cent. saturation level of carbon monoxide.
The landlord was subsequently found guilty of breaking the HMO management regulations in not maintaining the gas fire safely. As we all know, he was prosecuted. Tracy's parents, Trevor and Anita Murphy, have had to fight all the way for two and a half years to get the Crown Prosecution Service to proceed with a charge of manslaughter. On 22 April, the charge was confirmed, and the landlord was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, suspended for two years, and ordered to pay £4,000 towards the Murphys' costs.
After the trial, Tracy's father Trevor said:
We in the House owe it to the memory of Tracy Murphy, and to her parents who have campaigned so vigorously since her death, to try to get something from her death. We owe it to them to take more effective action, in the form of a national licensing scheme for multi-occupied houses, to stop the hideous, unnecessary and senseless death of young people on the scale that we have seen in recent years.
The problem is not just one of deaths through carbon monoxide poisoning. As I mentioned, the risk of death from fire is far greater in a multi-occupied house than in any other type of housing. Let us consider the case of 20-year-old Matt Cohn. He died in the early hours of Wednesday 28 July 1993 when fire ripped through the semi-detached multi-occupied house in Harrow in which he lived. I stress the fact--this is an important point--that I am talking about a two-storey house in Wealdstone. Matt lived in a converted attic into which he had moved only two weeks earlier. It was his first independent home away from his family.
Access to and from the attic was by means of a wooden ladder. The house had no fire protection and, as the subsequent inquest established, the fire probably started in a rubbish bin near the kitchen on the floor below the attic. There was a fire alarm, but it failed to go off because the batteries had not been replaced. The landlord did not live on the premises; he lived in Cumbria. Despite that,
he had allowed the property to be run without adequate arrangements for its management and maintenance and without proper safety protection for his tenants.
According to one of the ex-tenants,
Claire Jackson, who lived in the attic flat for a year and moved out just a week before Matt moved in, commented:
'.--(1) The Secretary of State may by order replace the provisions of sections 63 to 67 with a national, mandatory licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation.
(2) Any order under subsection (1) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'--[Mr. Raynsford.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
"estimates from the English House Condition Survey suggest that the privately rented HMO stock contains a significantly greater proportionate share of dwellings in poor condition than other forms of housing."
"There is little dispute that HMOs represent a significantly higher fire risk than single family homes."
"Our only child's death will not be in vain if mandatory licensing of landlords is introduced. You need a licence for a TV and an MOT for a car, yet you do not have to have a licence for something that can kill people."
"Matt didn't stand a chance. If there had been a back way out, he might have survived. It could have been all of us. I will never forget that night. Matt was just a young boy, happy-go-lucky with so many friends. He had his whole life in front of him and now it's all gone. The only way up or down was by the main stairs. There was no fire escape. We'd been told by the electricity board the wiring was unsafe."
"It makes me go hot and cold just thinking about it. It was just a matter of time, I suppose, but you never think it will actually happen. Everything was done on the cheap and the wiring was so dodgy that even when the electricity meter ran out, my bedroom lights stayed on. It could so easily have been me."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |