| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East): Arising out the tragic case in Harrow, of which many of us are aware, what would the hon. Gentleman's definition be of an HMO for the purposes of national registration?
Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that important question. When I began my speech, I outlined the different categories of multi-occupied houses. The definition that seems most appropriate to me is one that includes a number of separate households living under the same roof. The actual number can be defined in different ways. The Government proposed a series of different tests depending, first, on whether the household had lodgers, secondly, on whether the landlord was resident in the premises and, thirdly, on whether the premises were self-contained accommodation. I do not think that we have to go to a precise figure. I will tell the hon. Gentleman why, because I understand exactly why he asked his question.
For properly self-contained accommodation, which may be purpose built, different standards apply from those that apply to the bed-sit property that the hon. Gentleman and I know only too well and which we normally think of when we use the letters HMO. If, in the traditional type of HMO that the hon. Gentleman is describing, there are two or more households, it is an HMO that should be separately registered. If we are dealing with self-contained properties, especially if they are owner-occupied as is quite often the case, one can accept the exclusion of properties with three entirely self-contained flats within the premises. That is why I do not think that we can fix
an arbitrary figure. We have to look at the different categories of dwelling, but ensure that all properties at risk are brought within a licensing scheme. That is the crucial point to which I shall return in a moment.
I should like now to refer to evidence I obtained in Ipswich last week. I was visiting the town and I talked to the local authority there. It was conscious not only of the publicity concerning the Murphy case last week, but of the fact that the matter was due to be considered in the House this week. The authority brought to my attention a further sad fatality in a multi-occupied house in Ipswich.
The authority's letter to me says:
That is, perhaps, the most disturbing of all the comments.
The authority continues:
I have mentioned that case to raise the question whether reliance simply on CORGI--the Confederation of Registered Gas Installers--certificates is adequate. It is clear that, in that case, it was not. Proper inspection by the local authority environmental health officers resulting in notices being served has now led to action on that property.
Those tragedies are the background to the case, which is widely accepted on both sides, for the need for more urgent action. The Government published a consultation paper, as I mentioned, in November 1994. I want to be fair to the House and to set out the reasons given in that consultation paper in favour of a national licensing scheme, which we support, and the reasons that the Government spell out for opposing a national licensing scheme, which is their current position. I shall then invite hon. Members to conclude whether the Opposition or the Government are correct.
The Government spelt out the following arguments in favour of a national licensing scheme. First, it would
Secondly, it would
Thirdly, it would
Fourthly, it would
Finally, it would
Those were the arguments in favour.
The Government made three arguments against such a scheme. First, such a scheme
Secondly,
Thirdly, the Government said that
Let us consider those arguments. First, the Government said that licensing would add little to the powers already available to local authorities. By introducing part II of the Bill, the Government have destroyed that argument. They would not be introducing further powers and they would not include the special control provisions in part II if they believed that the current powers were adequate. There is clearly a need to do more. We are all aware of the appalling examples of lives that have been needlessly sacrificed, and they emphasise that the appalling safety risks require more urgent responses than are currently available.
The second implication of the Government's first objection is that licensing would somehow reduce flexibility by requiring authorities to deal with all HMOs, so making it difficult to concentrate on those properties that are most at risk. That argument does not hold water. We all agree that a risk assessment approach is needed in the introduction of a licensing scheme, as in a registration scheme. The worst properties must be given priority, and there is no difference between the parties on that.
Our only difference is that we believe that a national licensing scheme would oblige all local authorities to do that, whereas the Government's voluntary scheme--some may and some may not register--will result in very little happening.
The Government's second objection was that licensing would create excessive bureaucracy which would have to be paid for, and that only the better landlords would register. There are two separate issues here. The national registration scheme that the Government are introducing increases bureaucracy--there is no question about that. Additional notices will have to be served, and additional inspections and measures will have to be taken to ensure compliance. That is implicit in such a scheme. The question is whether we want an effective scheme to justify the bureaucracy or only a partially effective scheme.
The problem is that the Government are arguing for more powers--they would not otherwise be introducing part II. They accept that their scheme will involve bureaucracy, but it is justified because they recognise--as do we--that there is a huge problem about the safety of the people who live in such accommodation. An overall national licensing scheme is more likely to be effective, because the standards will be known everywhere. Landlords who hold their housing stock in more than one local authority area--some have properties in a number of areas--would know what standards had to be met in every area of the country. If schemes vary from area to area, those landlords will be uncertain as to what standards apply in different areas. It would be far more bureaucratic for them to have to pursue the environmental health departments in each area to find out what is required. From the landlord's point of view, there will be less bureaucracy in a single standard national licensing scheme than in the multiplicity of schemes that the Government are allowing for in their registration arrangements.
The argument that only the better landlords will agree to register is fallacious, because the obligation would be on the local authority to ensure that all premises were registered. That would ensure an approach based on risk assessment, and that authorities dealt first with properties in the worst condition. We envisage a scheme in which there would be more regular visits, inspections and enforcement in respect of properties identified as risks, and relatively long periods between registration and re-registration of properties that are clearly satisfactory.
The study by Geoffrey Randall estimated that it would be possible to introduce a mandatory national licensing scheme along the lines that we advocate at a cost of£30 per room registered. That is a modest cost in relation to the appalling loss of life--perhaps 100 people a year--as a result of fire and gas accidents in properties and the appalling conditions that prevail in so many of them, some four out of 10 of which are unfit for human habitation. That is what we must put in the balance.
That leads me to the third argument against licensing in the Government's consultation paper--that it would introduce too much regulation in a market where both landlord and tenant are willing to agree on a reasonable standard of accommodation. We have no problem with a reasonable standard of accommodation, but we have a serious problem with squalid, sub-standard and dangerous places in which people die because the proper standards are not properly enforced. We cannot justify doing
nothing on the grounds that the current position is reasonable--it is not. The Government know that something must be done, and the argument between us is whether there should be a mandatory national scheme or the partial and--in our view--ineffective registration arrangements that the Government are proposing.
There is extremely wide support for a national mandatory licensing scheme. Some 76 per cent. of those who responded to the consultation paper on licensing in 1994 indicated that they favoured a new national licensing system. The reasons for their support were straightforward. First, the current law is complex and confusing. In its evidence, Birmingham city council listed 17 different Acts of Parliament and regulations that sought to control conditions in the private rented sector. Secondly, the complexity is multiplied by the different policies and enforcement practices employed by different local authorities. Landlords who own properties in different boroughs were confused by the different requirements and regimes in different areas.
There is a great deal to be said for a standard national framework enforced in a comparable way everywhere so that everybody knows the position and whether the standards in their properties are adequate. The absence of a clear national framework makes it difficult for landlords who are thinking about opening new properties. How are they to approach the problem? Will they look at different areas and see in which one they can get away with least control? Will they say, "In this area we do not have to register, so we can get away with poor conditions; we will open a new house here and not go into that area because the local authority is tougher"? All that that will do is encourage poor standards and discourage the vigilant and conscientious authorities from pursuing proper licensing arrangements.
Let us take the parallel of motor cars. We know exactly what the consequences would be if licensing applied in some counties, but not in others. Motorists would decide to register in the county that did not have a licensing scheme, the purpose of the scheme would be defeated and it would become a nonsense.
The other problem with the current scheme is that it is inherently inefficient because it depends on tenants' making a complaint and on the local authority tracking down each substandard property. Hon. Members will recall the case in Harrow, in which the local authority was not aware that the property was an HMO. That is, sadly, a consequence of the present arrangements. Depending solely on tenants' complaints is inevitably an inefficient way of ensuring that all the properties that need to be checked are identified and made subject to the licensing arrangements. Some tenants will inevitably be nervous about making a complaint, especially if they have an insecure letting and the landlord says to them, "If you complain, you can leave. You need not expect to be able to stay here."
All the reasons that I have given make an overwhelming case for a national licensing scheme. Licensing is supported by a wide range of national, local, voluntary and statutory organisations including the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Association of District Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of London Government, Shelter, the Campaign for Bedsit Rights--which has a remarkable record for campaigning tirelessly over many years to
tackle the scandal of poor conditions in multi-occupied houses--the Refugee Council, the National Union of Students, the National Association of Probation Officers and the National Consumer Council.
On 5 March, we held a housing policy conference, at which a number of people spoke. I shall quote not a Labour party spokesman, because the House would expect me to do that, but the chairman of Quality Street, a private sector landlord. Paul Mugnaioni said openly that he saw no reason why private landlords should not have to be licensed before renting out homes. He said that it would cause no problems for responsible landlords. Richard Best, the director of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, added that the research conducted for the Campaign for Bedsit Rights showed that a national licensing scheme could pay for itself after five years.
"On 24 February the fire brigade and police were called to break into a bedsit in Ipswich, following an emergency call from another tenant. On gaining access they found a nineteen year old man dead on his bed with a gas fire on.
Subsequent investigations by the Police, local Environmental Health Officers, the Health and Safety Executive and CORGI revealed that:--
1. Death was due to carbon monoxide poisoning.
2. The fire was found to be spilling carbon monoxide into the room and the flue was found to be capped off at roof level, therefore all flue gases spilled back into the room.
3. The property had three other gas fires, two of these had similar faults, including flues capped at roof level.
4. The property had a current CORGI gas safety certificate".
"5. Inspection of the landlord's entire portfolio of twenty five properties revealed serious defects at sixteen addresses.
Emergency disconnections of appliances and/or supply at all of these properties were necessary. Defects found included capped off flues, undersize supply pipework and various faulty appliances. The majority of appliances appeared to be secondhand.
6. Disconcertingly the majority of the properties were covered by current CORGI gas safety certificates.
7. The Council served Statutory Notices in respect of all sixteen properties.
8. The landlord has now complied with the majority of the Notices."
"secure high standards throughout the licensed HMO sector. As with current HMO powers there would be an emphasis on the more consistent enforcement of fire safety standards, both the provision of basic amenities to ensure minimum health and hygiene standards would also be included".
29 Apr 1996 : Column 841
"prevent the undesirable proliferation of hostels catering primarily for benefit recipients in resort areas".
"focus any regulatory regime on those areas and types of housing with the worst problems, and hence make possible the removal of planning controls which apply uniformly nationally".
"clarify the regulatory regime so that landlords and tenants know as far as possible which properties need to be licensed and what standards are acceptable".
"ensure a more consistent approach to the HMO sector, which recognises the value of HMOs in meeting a particular housing need and which is reflected in local housing and planning strategies."
8 pm
"would add little to the powers already available to local authorities. These can be exercised flexibly and tackle those properties which represent the greatest risk. Licensing would reduce this degree of flexibility by requiring local authorities to deal with all HMOs, so making it more difficult to concentrate on those properties most at risk".
"as with current registration schemes it would create excessive bureaucracy which would have to be paid for. Only the better landlords would agree to register and the remaining landlords would, as now, refuse to come forward. There would therefore be no significant improvement in the condition of standards of HMO properties as a direct result of licensing".
"licensing would be introducing too high a degree of regulation into a market where both landlord and tenant are willing to agree on a reasonable standard of accommodation, particularly in relation to matters not directly affecting fire safety. Raising standards to an unrealistically high level in all cases would mean that either the landlord would withdraw accommodation from the market or the tenants would be unable to afford the higher rents that higher standards could imply."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |