| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is often confused, but not always. I concede that I should perhaps have said at the beginning that the first two amendments were probing amendments, but I did say that they were designed to clarify whether the Government would seek to bring more HMOs within the licensing framework, as he will see from the record. Conservative Members are highly sensitive to that question. We are mindful of the balance that I was beginning to describe, and which was acknowledged by the hon. Gentleman, between regulation and protection; and we are anxious, on behalf of landlords and others, about the risk of seriously deterring landlords from investing in this sub-sector of the rented sector.
Sir Sydney Chapman: We should be particularly sensitive at a time when public housing, or housing in the social sector, has declined, and when the number of new homes has declined. We must be careful not to discourage private landlords from supplying much-needed housing, particularly in places such as Greater London, unless there are very good reasons for closing properties because they constitute a hazard.
Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend, who is an expert on these matters, properly draws attention to a particular failing on the Minister's part. I do not want to embarrass the Minister more than is necessary, but we are among friends here, are we not? I think that the Minister would want me to remind him of his failure in respect of social house building. He has let down the country, himself and the Government. He has many qualities and strengths, which will doubtless be on show today, but the 50 per cent. reduction in social house construction under this Labour Administration further emphasises the need to fill the gap with other suitable properties. If that is not done, many vulnerable people will not be able to obtain the houses that they need so desperately for themselves and their children. As my hon. Friend says, it is all the more important for us not to deter private landlords at a time when there is not enough social housing, and the amendments that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) quickly identified as probing amendments are designed to test the Government in that regard.
The Council of Mortgage Lenders feels that the licensing of all HMOs would be excessive, but believes that there may be a back-door policy of extending licensing not just to them but to a substantial proportion of the private rented sector. Like the Opposition, it seeks assurances from the Government.
I pay tribute to the Minister for taking on board the concern expressed in Committee about fit and proper persons. Government amendment No. 32 seeks to extend the definition of evidence relating to whether someone is a fit and proper person to evidence that a person has been convicted of sexual offences. The Government have tabled a number of other useful
11 May 2004 : Column 188
technical amendments, which shows that the Minister listened carefully in Committee. That does not surprise me, and I do not think that it will have surprised anyone else because much of the debate in Committee was constructive and intended to improve the Bill.
2.15 pm
I want to say a little about the Liberal Democrat amendments. I do not like to say more than is necessary about the Liberal Democrats, although we recently combined usefully on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, and I do not want to spoil the emerging affair between us and the minor party. [Laughter.] I mean, of course, the emerging political affair. I have to say, however, that amendment No. 105, which requires local housing authorities to fulfil their general duties within 12 months rather than five years, is a regulatory step too far. Authorities would, I think, find it extremely difficult to fulfil their obligations. That is an optimistic aspiration at best and in all probability an unrealistic one. Under amendment No. 106, if
"there are good reasons why it cannot reasonably comply",
a local authority may apply for an extension of the 12-month period to five years. The answer to that is that all authorities would apply, as few would be able to comply with what I consider an over-zealous time scale.
Let me now say something about our new clauses 17 and 21. Conservative Members, along with many Labour Members, are champions of those who campaign against fuel poverty. I see that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) is present. I want to make it clear, on my own behalf and that of my party, that he has a noble record in that respect. We can join forces in raising genuine questions about the Government's ability to meet their own targets for the delivery of warm homes. Fuel poverty blights lives and it is not acceptable for any Member or party to allow the problem to continue when it could be rectified with reasonable practical ease. Many Members have tabled amendments, at this stage and earlier, drawing attention to the concerns of those who, like me, are determined to highlight that problem.
It is estimated that between 30,000 and 60,000 people die unnecessarily in winter because they have not enough money to heat their homes. I need say little more than that, except that we know that fuel poverty is caused by a combination of inadequate income and inadequate home insulation. New clause 21, which is modest and practical, is designed to push the Minister further towards a policy that would unite Members throughout the House in pursuit of the campaign against fuel poverty, in the interests of some of our most vulnerable citizens.
New clause 17 would establish a housing ombudsman for students, who are specifically excluded from the regulations in the Bill. I note that amendment No. 124, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, requests their inclusion, but I do not think that that counteracts or contradicts our demand for an ombudsman, which has been welcomed by the National Union of Students. It has written to me saying that it welcomes our new clause in principle. A letter from the vice-president for welfare, who is running the NUS housing campaign, raises a number of specific issues about the role of the ombudsman. I also have good news from the housing
11 May 2004 : Column 189
ombudsman himself, who has written to me and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) saying that he might well be able to add this responsibility to his existing brief, so that he or one of his deputies could perhaps become the students' ombudsman.
We see a real need to protect vulnerable students. Most universities do a good job in providing accommodation and many halls of residence are of the highest possible standard, but it is important for us to build in some protection to deal with those that are not.
I have tried to cover what is an enormous subject, given the grouping of the amendments and new clauses. I make no criticism of the Chair, of course. I hope that it is fair to say that all our amendments and new clauses are designed to be practical and positive, and I am sure that the Minister has read and will respond to them in that spirit.
Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab): I should like to speak to amendment No. 3, which is also supported by two of my hon. Friends and three Liberal Democrat Members. I had therefore wondered whether I got the amendment right, but on balance I think that I probably have.
This is a relatively simple amendment, which I am sure the Minister could simply accept. It deals with the issue, which was raised in Committee, of which houses in multiple occupation will be incorporated in the mandatory national licensing arrangements. The Minister said then that he was likely to use as the definition properties that had three or more storeys and five or more people living in them. The amendment seeks to change "and" to "or", so the definition would cover properties with three or more storeys or five or more people. That is an important point. Although the change involves the small words "and" and "or", it would make quite a big difference to some properties that will otherwise be excluded from the scheme.
I should like to try to tease out a number of issues from the Minister, if he is in a teaseable mood today. I hope that we can get one or two responses from him. I am sure that he will say in response that the amendment would put the definition on the face of the Bill, whereas he prefers the position in which that is done by regulation through secondary legislation, because it is then easier to adapt to changing circumstances as we go along. I have listened to that argument with interest but if he is going to mount it, as I am sure that he will, perhaps he will also inform the House of whether he sees the definition that he gave in Committee, if that is what he is going to stick with—three or more storeys and five or more people—as just a starting point for a national licensing scheme. Does he foresee a situation in which, once local authorities have a certain number of properties in the national licensing framework, he might look to extend the definition as authorities become able to cope with more properties? It would be interesting to learn that from him, because it might give us a different appreciation of what he and the Government intend.
Will the Minister reflect on why we are looking to introduce a national licensing system for HMOs at all? I suggest that there are two essential problems with HMOs, which come up over and over again. The issue that particularly interested him in Committee, which
11 May 2004 : Column 190
was why he wanted to stick with a definition that excluded any properties lower than three storeys, was risk. We went into the assessment that has been made of fire risk, and the conclusive evidence that the greatest risk of fire, and deaths from fire, in HMOs occurs in properties of three or more storeys. That is clear. However, I put it to the Minister that there are two main problems. Risk, particularly risk from fire, is one fundamental reason for licensing HMOs, but there is another difficulty, which perhaps occurs more often, although its impact is arguably less serious: nuisance. Nuisance from HMOs, where there is concern from neighbours about dereliction, rubbish scattered around the property and the noise and nuisance that can come from the occupants—often in part because a property is being badly managed—has little to do with a property's height and whether it has two or three storeys. It has much more to do with the number of people who live in a close environment. That is why my definition is better than that which the Minister proposes.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |