| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Chris Davies (Littleborough and Saddleworth): The Government deserve credit for recognising the importance of the issue, and for ensuring that provision is made in the Bill for raising its profile and trying to tackle some of the worst problems. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who clearly showed that concerns are felt on both sides
of the Chamber. That said, the plans for a voluntary registration scheme strike me as convoluted, confused and a cop-out. At worst, they seem designed to limit the effectiveness of real attempts to tackle the problem. I suspect that, if the proposals had been suggested by the Labour party, the Government would be pouring scorn on the details.
As a councillor, I recall visiting a property in Canning street in Toxteth, Liverpool, some 12 or 14 years ago. It was perhaps typical of the impression that is created by the acronym "HMO". It was a grand four-storey Georgian property, with a magnificent classical frontage. However, as one reached it, one realised that the building's structure had decayed. At the side of the door was a block of nine bells, of which some worked and some did not--a few were simply wires hanging out of the wooden frame. One would eventually find a bell that worked, and someone would come and open the door.
One would then enter the gloomy interior of what was once a magnificent and prestigious house, which probably belonged to a merchant. However, the lighting now came from a single bulb hanging from an extended cable, and the plaster was rotting on the walls. The electrical wiring clearly needed to be redone, as one could see stretches of cable protruding from the plasterwork. The carpet on the once magnificent staircase was threadbare, and people could easily trip if they were to walk down the stairs in the dark.
One eventually reached the top landing, where a separate toilet had been provided behind a 6-ft high containment of hardboard, which reached nowhere near the top of the 12-ft. ceiling. That was unfortunate, as one of the tenants had a disorder which meant that odours emanated from the landing throughout the day, which were unpleasant for all residents and visitors.
The once magnificent rooms had been converted by dividing walls into relatively small bedsits. They had very high ceilings and minimal heating, and were very cold in winter. The washing and kitchen facilities were scarcely adequate, being of the most primitive kind; and I have already described the toilet. To be fair, that property was hardly a seething mass of human beings--it was semi-derelict.
It was occupied by only a handful of people: a teacher, a student, a council employee and several unemployed people. If the property had been exploited to capacity--if it had been in a fit condition to do that--it could have accommodated five or six times as many people in conditions which might be regarded as unacceptable, but which would have allowed each person a fair amount of space.
It is all very well for single people to live in such circumstances, so long as they choose to do so--as was probably the case with the five tenants in that property.
However, it would be unacceptable for a property such as that to be occupied by those such as the elderly, who had no alternative but to live in such premises. It would be particularly unacceptable for families with children to occupy such a property.
To be fair to the landlord, the cost of renovating such a property and making it fit for habitation was completely unrealistic. That property--a listed building--has now been restored, at public expense, at a cost of more than a third of a million pounds. There is no way in which a private landlord would ever spend that amount on a property, as he could never achieve that sort of return.
Despite the difficulties that all local authorities face in trying to raise the standard of houses in multiple occupation owned by private landlords--for the very real reason that the money is not available to carry out a substantial programme of improvement--it is essential that Parliament lays down minimum standards. During the debate today--and many times in Committee--we heard about the risks associated with HMOs compared with smaller, privately rented accommodation that is let to perhaps one family. The risk of a serious fire is 28 times greater in HMOs. For those reasons, the Liberal Democrats support the amendment calling for mandatory licensing.
It seems odd that the Government are posing as the friend of local authority freedom. After all, most Opposition Members condemn them as the most centralising Government in British history. It is strange that they now advocate that local authorities should have the freedom of choice in these matters. Those of us of a cynical nature would suggest that Government give freedom to local authorities only when it suits them.
I wonder why the Government advocated the proposals in the Bill. It cannot be because a national scheme would be difficult to enforce, yet that was one of the preposterous arguments that were put in Committee. We can imagine a director of housing facing the publicity of a fire such as the one in Harrow that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), and being exposed to the full scrutiny of the press and his own councillors, and then finding that there was a mandatory scheme but that the local authority and the officers under his direct control had not enforced it properly. At best he could kiss his career prospects goodbye.
The idea that a mandatory scheme would not be enforced properly is ludicrous. It is more likely that it would help the Government to ensure that local authorities received no further support from the Department of the Environment to carry out the obligations that such an amendment would place upon them. Perhaps it would be convenient for the Chancellor to say that local authorities had the freedom to choose whether to take on the additional responsibility; and, if they chose to do so, they would have to decide whether or not to pay the money. Such measures involve costs, and I fear that the new clause represents one way to avoid any burden falling upon the Exchequer.
I wonder whether--I suspect that it is most likely--there are those within the Conservative party--perhaps on its right wing, or perhaps they are now regarded as part of mainstream Conservative thinking--who believe that imposing further regulations on landlords is somehow unacceptable. Some years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said that
all landlords were cast in the same mould, but some were more mouldy than others. It was a difficult time for him, as, in a blaze of publicity, he had just dealt with a particularly notorious Rachman landlord.
If we are to solve our housing problems and provide choice and flexibility for those seeking accommodation, it is important to encourage the private sector, but we should not forget that encouragement to private landlords and the freedom for them to earn money in that way involves responsibilities. The Opposition do not avoid that.
In practice, the Bill is concerned more with the appearance than the reality of dealing with HMOs. The hon. Member for Southend, East was concerned that the Government would not reap the full benefits of the initiative that they were attempting to take, and that they would not gain advantage from their proposals. I fear that his words were prophetic. Although the Government are making a gesture towards dealing with the problem, they will not gain the blessing of the housing associations involved, because of the way in which they are promoting the registration scheme, which I fear will not do the job.
In Rochdale, some 180 HMOs are known to the local authority, but the officers there say that there exist probably half as many again that are not known to the local authority. In neighbouring Oldham, the local authority is aware of about 140 HMOs. It is likely that there are another 140 that are not known to the local authority. The scheme proposed by Minister places the onus upon the local authority through the need to publicise the arrangements and ensure proper enforcement, yet many of the landlords who avoid their legal obligations by not making their presence known to the local authority will continue to slip through the net.
Although the proposals contain methods of enforcement, and place obligations on the landlord, and although it may be argued in law that ignorance is no defence, in practice, if a local authority takes to court an HMO landlord who has not previously made himself known, I fear that the court will deal with him leniently if he pleads ignorance. The landlord will receive a rap over the knuckles, and only then will the enforcement procedure commence. It is in the interests of landlords who do not care about their responsibilities or about tenants to find ways of circumventing the Government's schemes, even if local authorities decide to implement them.
A mandatory licensing scheme introduced nationwide would place the obligation firmly on the landlord to declare his properties and their condition; it would make available tough penalties to enforce the Bill's provisions, and would bring into line landlords who might not otherwise comply. Such a scheme would still allow local authorities freedom and flexibility to determine their assessment criteria above the minimum to meet the regulatory standards.
I imagine that local authorities would draw up their own five-star schemes. The basic requirement for one star would be to pass the minimum test laid down by statute to gain registration. A two-star property would still not be considered ideal, but would be deemed suitable for single persons having the freedom to make that choice. It would take five stars for a local authority to say that a property
was acceptable as long-term bed-sit accommodation for a family with children. The local authority would have flexibility to determine the arrangements most appropriate for its own circumstances.
Such a scheme acknowledges reality, but the House must deal with the rogues who seek to circumvent regulations, and with slum landlords.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |