 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Housing and Regeneration |
Housing and Regeneration Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Hannah Weston, Committee
Clerk
† attended the
Committee
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 24 January 2008(Morning)[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]Housing and Regeneration Bill9
am
The
Chairman:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Before we
start, let me say that I have taken a look at the schedule of what we
must get through between now and a week today. Under the terms of the
agreement with the House, the Bill must exit Committee at 4 pm on that
day, and there is rather a lot to get through. Members on both sides of
the Committee will agree that this is an important Bill, and my job is
to ensure that it is properly debated. I cannot tell hon. Members what
to do or what they may and may talk about, and nor do I seek to do so,
because that is in their gift. However, what I would say—clearly
and, I hope, not too fiercely—is that it would be an extremely
good idea for the usual channels to talk to each other about Tuesday
evening, if they have not already done so. What happens then will
depend on where we have got to by the end of the afternoon, when I
shall also be present. We owe it to colleagues in the House to ensure
that we get through as much of the Bill as we can, even if we cannot
get through it all. Now, it is over to you.
New Clause 21Implied
term as to fitness for human
habitation
‘In section 8 of
the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, for subsections (3) and (4),
substitute the
following—
‘(3)
This section applies to a contract for the letting of a house for a
term of less than seven
years.
(4) In determining
whether the letting is one to which this section applies, the
provisions of section 13(2) shall apply.’.—[Lembit
Öpik.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Good morning, Mr.
Gale. I take on board your request for focus and brevity. The new
clause, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for
St. Ives, seeks to define the applicability of sections 8(3) and (4) of
the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Referring to section 8, the amendment
says:
“This
section applies to a contract for the letting of a house for a term of
less than seven years”.
The next part of the
amendment is self-explanatory. Obviously, we are trying to ensure that
the legislation applies to the right people in the right circumstances
and in a fair way, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has
to say. Given what you have just said, Mr. Gale, there is no
great benefit in my giving a lengthy exposition, because it is the
Government’s perspective that is important, not
mine.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government (Mr. Iain Wright):
Thank you,
Mr. Gale, and good morning to you. I take on board your
ruling on moving forward swiftly while seeking to ensure that the
important measures in the Bill are adequately scrutinised and
debated.
The new
clause would extend the obligation to ensure that a property is fit for
human habitation, as defined under section 10 of the 1985 Act, to all
rented accommodation that is let on short leases of less than seven
years. I fully understand why the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire and
for St. Ives tabled it, but it is not necessary, because we now have
more up-to-date and effective provisions in place to ensure that rented
property is let and maintained in a satisfactory and safe
condition.
The
fitness standard referred to in section 10 of the 1985 Act has been
replaced by the housing health and safety rating system, which was
introduced in the Housing Act 2004. The old fitness standard was based
on criteria that were originally introduced 80 years ago and it was in
great need of modernisation.
The new rating system is a
risk-assessment process, which looks at the likelihood that an incident
will arise as a result of the condition of the property
and that there will be a harmful outcome. That approach allows
the assessment to be geared to the individual circumstances of each
case, based on the risks to those occupants who are most vulnerable to
the hazards.
The
rating standard assesses 29 categories of housing hazard, such as
electrical hazards, cold, falls, fire and so on and is therefore a more
suitable tool than the old standard for improving housing conditions in
the private rented sector. The old standard did not cover all the major
health and safety problems found in a home and gave no indication of
how serious problems were.
If a property is found to
contain serious, so-called category 1 hazards, the local authority has
a duty to take the most appropriate action in relation to those
hazards. That could include serving a notice for the landlord to carry
out improvements and it may even extend to issuing a prohibition order,
the effect of which would be to close all, or part of, a
property.
The
Housing Act 2004 enables local authority environmental health officers
to undertake a rating system assessment of the risks and hazards in a
property. If risks are found, the authority can instruct the landlord
or person responsible for management to undertake any works necessary
to ensure that the property is safe and decent—for example, the
installation of central heating. It can instruct the landlord to
undertake such works within a set time scale. Failure by the landlord
or manager to do so can result in a fine of up to
£5,000.
In
addition, landlords have obligations to carry out repairs to keep their
properties in good condition. Under section 11 of the Landlord and
Tenant Act 1985, they are legally responsible for repairs to the
structure and exterior of their properties and for keeping the plumbing
and heating installations in proper working order. Local authorities
have powers to force landlords to carry out necessary repairs. The
rating system that I mentioned can be used by tenants whose landlords
fail to carry out the repairs for which they are responsible under the
landlord and tenant Acts.
Local authorities have a range
of powers to force property owners to deal with statutory nuisance
problems relating to the condition of a property. For example, under
the Building Act 1984, they can require steps to be taken to address a
property that adversely affects the amenity of an area due to
disrepair.
Given the
range of powers in place from a variety of legislation, I believe that
adequate provisions are already in place to address the condition of
rented accommodation. Indeed, the new housing health and safety rating
system has many advantages over the old fitness standard. As the new
rating standard can give full consideration to problems
caused—for example, by damp and a lack of central
heating—in the way that a fixed set of minimum standards cannot,
it provides more protection for
tenants.
I hope that
I have set out the position clearly and reassured the hon. Member for
Montgomeryshire and that he will withdraw the
motion.
Lembit
Öpik:
I applaud the Minister’s faith in
existing legislation. He is right to highlight the housing health and
safety rating system and to point out that, in theory at least, a
tenant can evoke it to secure improvements in the standard of
accommodation that they rent. However, in any practical sense, often
that is not the case. We are dealing with individuals who frequently
feel disfranchised and quite often feel intimidated by their landlord.
As such, although theoretically an individual who rents a property can
use existing legislation to improve the conditions in which they live,
in practice that is often unlikely. To list 29 categories of hazard in
legislation is fine, but I would be willing to bet that 99.9 per cent.
of the public have no idea what those 29 categories are. The new clause
would make it a little easier for tenants to see their rights
protected.
I hear
what the Minister says, and to save time and to consult Shelter and
other organisations I will not press the new clause to a vote now, but
I may bring it back on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion.
Motion and
clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New Clause 29Mandatory
licensing of houses in multiple
occupation
‘In section 55 of
the Housing Act 2004, for subsection (2), substitute the
following:
“(2) This
Part applies to the following HMOs in the case of each local housing
authority:
(a) any HMO which
comprises three storeys or more or which is occupied by four or more
persons who live in two or more
households;
(b) any other HMO
which falls within any prescribed description of HMO,
and
(c) if an area is for the
time being designated by the authority under section 56 as subject to
additional licensing, any HMO in that area which falls within any
description of HMO specified in the
designation.”’.—[Dr.
Blackman-Woods.]
Brought
up, and read the First time.
Dr.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab): I beg to
move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
With
the new clause, we are using the opportunity provided by this aspect of
the Bill to press the Government to extend mandatory licensing beyond
what is outlined in the Housing Act 2004. There is clear evidence from
Shelter and within the House from the all-party group on balanced and
sustainable communities that the current threshold leaves thousands of
vulnerable tenants in very difficult circumstances and at risk, because
they fall outside the scope of the mandatory licensing
system.
We also know
that many local authorities, which can have an additional licensing or
selective licensing scheme for housing, refuse to do so even when there
is a strong local need, such as in my city of Durham. In Durham, there
is an extensive private rented sector because of the student population
and because Durham is a centre for the county. There is a real need in
the area for an extended licensing scheme, but that has not been
undertaken by the people in the local authority, for reasons best known
to
themselves.
Good
landlords have assured me that they have nothing to fear from an
extension of mandatory licensing, so the new clause pushes the
Government to introduce mandatory licensing for all houses in multiple
occupation with more than four occupants or with three storeys or more.
Currently, licensing is mandatory for dwellings with five or more
occupants and three storeys or
more.
The
previous Minister for Local Government, now the Minister for the
Environment, gave assurances at an Adjournment debate last June that
this situation would be considered seriously. I know that the
Government announced a review of the private rented sector yesterday,
but I want to press the Minister on this. The Government should
seriously consider making changes to the mandatory licensing scheme so
that tenants are better protected and there is better management across
the whole private rented sector.
Lyn
Brown (West Ham) (Lab): I support the new clause in the
hope that we might broaden the coverage of the current licensing
scheme. Even Government figures estimate that the scheme covers only
120,000 houses in multiple occupation—only 19 per cent. of the
638,000 estimated HMOs in England. The mandatory scheme for larger
houses places an onus on landlords to register properties, and gives
councils a chance, at least, of regulating the circumstances in their
areas.
There are two
principal reasons why I support the new clause. First, the mandatory
scheme covers only homes with three storeys or more. In my
constituency, most houses have two storeys and there is very little
accommodation with three storeys. My hon. Friend the Member for City of
Durham talked about the students who occupy such homes in her area, but
in my area we are talking about migrant workers who have come to build
the new city at Stratford and the Olympic site. My constituents and I
are in a borough with the largest building site in Europe.
Understandably, for such a large-scale property development and
project, the migrant workers will be with us only temporarily. They
tend to secure accommodation close to the site where they work, in
small houses with many people to a room. As construction efforts
ratchet up, more workers
are required on site, and that has led to overcrowding as workers share
accommodation to keep costs down. Constituents have told me that
hot-bedding is rife. That is when a bed is shared by many people on
different shifts.
Margaret
Moran (Luton, South) (Lab): May I emphasise the point that
my hon. Friend is making? In the 1950s and 1960s, in Luton, hot-bedding
was the norm when Irish construction workers came over to build Luton,
and subsequently. That has not happened for generations, but is now
happening again in areas such as mine that are part of the new Milton
Keynes/south midlands growth area. We are starting to experience
exactly the same
problems.
Lyn
Brown:
I thank my hon. Friend. Hot-bedding might be
acceptable on a nuclear submarine, but it does not make for sustainable
communities. The pressure on accommodation is so great that lock-up
garages and garden sheds have been illegally converted into
accommodation. On 2 January, the Newham Recorder, a fantastic
local campaigning newspaper, reported the death of an individual who
had been living in a lock-up garage on the Romford road. It seems that
a heater in the garage caught fire while he was asleep. The
conflagration was so intense that it has not yet been possible to
identify his body, but he clearly was sleeping and had furniture in a
lock-up garage.
Migrant
workers are being charged a huge amount for the privilege of
hot-bedding and, we think, sleeping in lock-up garages. They are in
poor-quality accommodation and seriously overcrowded houses. Last
night, at a meeting in my constituency, a constituent told me of a
two-bedroom house in Plaistow in which more than 14 men live. The
problem is not small; it is widespread. Given that the homes are too
small for the number of people staying in them, mere living is being
exported outside the confines of the house. Living happens in the
street and the garden. It is insanitary.
9.15 am
I have lost
sight of the number of complaints that I have received from
constituents about this issue, which is leading to home occupier
flight. While the population temporarily rockets, long-term residents
find the associated pressures too great. I am repeatedly told by
neighbours and friends in the community that they have had enough. They
are putting their homes up for sale, but the problem is that when they
do so they sell to people who then rent the house out, so the situation
gets worse and worse. The exceptionally high occupancy levels cause
real stress, and the current licensing scheme does little to protect
those in smaller houses in multiple occupation. More than 80 per cent.
of such homes are not covered by the mandatory licensing scheme, and
the majority of those in my constituency fall outside the mandatory
threshold.
The new
clause would increase the number of properties that came within the
scope of the regulations. As I stated earlier, very few of the houses
in multiple occupation in West Ham are three or more storeys high, so
the current legislation ignores large swathes of the sector. Those
smaller properties are much more likely to be owned by smaller-scale
and more informal landlords,
and to have a greater impact on the area in quieter more residential
neighbourhoods; under the new clause, instead of a property being
required to have three or more storeys and a significant number of
residents, either criterion would qualify it to be an HMO eligible for
regulation.
I
recognise that we cannot overburden the sector with unnecessary
regulation and local authorities with additional properties to inspect
and regulate. However, as I have outlined, the problems caused by HMOs
are significant enough to justify the new clause. I urge the Minister
to accept it, and to place an onerous financial burden on landlords
caught flouting the law. The last thing that is needed is for the
Minister to accept the provisions but for a derisory penalty to be
imposed on landlords, given the amount of money that they rake in by
overcrowding homes and burdening
communities.
Mr.
Wright:
I pay tribute to the passionate and tenacious
manner in which my hon. Friends have raised the issue. They have raised
it with me on many occasions, and I pay tribute to their campaigning
skills on affordable housing, overcrowding and problems of houses in
multiple
occupation.
I
shall give the Committee the context. The Labour party manifestos of
1997 and 2001 made a commitment to introduce the mandatory licensing of
HMOs to raise standards in such housing, which, as we have heard, is
often poor quality and badly managed. Consultation on those pledges
indicated widespread support for that approach. However, the Government
were keen to avoid the excessive regulatory burdens to which my hon.
Friend has alluded and therefore wanted licensing of HMOs to be a
properly targeted measure. It was decided that mandatory licensing
should apply to those properties with the highest risk, which often
provide the greatest management
challenges.
Lyn
Brown:
Does my hon. Friend accept that the greatest risk
is not necessarily a question of the size of the building; it may be a
question of the area in which it sits and the local
circumstances?
A
1997 report commissioned from the consultants Entec entitled
“Fire Risk in HMOs” concluded that the fire risk in HMOs
is greatest for occupants in properties of three or more storeys, and
that the level of occupancy also influences risk. Given that the
legislation is designed to catch those properties that pose the
greatest risk to occupiers, if the largest HMOs pose the greatest risk,
drawing the line at three storeys and five persons, which is the
current position, was and is right, notwithstanding the concerns
expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham. However, the
“prescribed description” of a mandatory HMO is contained
within an order, so if further evidence suggests otherwise—the
evidence that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham has provided is
top notch—it can be easily changed, which is why the measure was
not included within the Housing Act 2004. It was important to explain
why the definition is as it currently is, and why it is based on the
risk to occupants.
Now I will turn to some related
issues that are not directly connected to the risk to the occupants of
HMOs, but that will resonate with my hon. Friends the Members for City
of Durham and for West Ham, who tabled the new clause. My hon. Friend
the Member for City of Durham has concerns about balanced
communities—I know that, because she is a near neighbour of mine
in the north-east and a tenacious campaigner for affordable housing. At
her invitation, I attended a seminar in her area on affordable housing,
and I pay tribute to her work. That work is sometimes in conflict with
the local authority, which does not seem to prioritise housing as my
hon. Friend does—I think that she has the measure of her
constituency absolutely
right.
My hon. Friend
has a beautiful city as her constituency, and she has a beautiful and
extremely prestigious university in her constituency. Most student
housing that is owned and managed by the educational establishment
providing courses in higher or further education to students is exempt
from mandatory licensing, due to three nationally approved codes of
management practice for that particular
sub-sector.
On
student accommodation that is not owned and managed by educational
establishments, my hon. Friend will no doubt be aware of, and will no
doubt contribute to, the measure that we are about to consult on,
namely the changes to the use classes order in relation to HMOs. We
need that consultation to allow the Government to consider whether
local authorities need to have more planning control over the future
establishment of HMOs and their density. A small working group is also
being set up to examine how the relevant agencies can better work
together on the concentration of that particular sub-sector—the
so-called “studentification” of an area—via a
non-legislative route. I hope that my hon. Friend will contribute to
that consultation and feed in her concerns through that process to me,
which I am sure that she will
do.
Notwithstanding
the contribution that students make to the economy of a town or
city—I certainly want to see a university of Hartlepool, and I
think that a university is important for generating prosperity in an
area—there can be management issues in relation to properties
predominantly housing student tenants, such as smaller HMOs, perhaps in
targeted, specific areas. That is why the Housing Act 2004 gave local
authorities the power to designate areas subject to additional
licensing, where proper local consultation has been carried out and
consent has been given by the Secretary of State. Additional licensing
allows licensing to be focused on particular circumstances and in
particular areas where there are problems for members of the wider
local community caused by the poor management of privately rented
property.
The
provision for the introduction of additional licensing schemes will
also apply in the instances that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham
outlined today—she also outlined them on Second Reading and in
an Adjournment debate last year about housing in West Ham to which we
both contributed. Indeed, many hon. Members have encountered problems
involving smaller houses, which were perhaps initially designed for
families but have now been let by landlords to multiple individuals. As
a result—my hon. Friend put this far more eloquently than I
could—those houses
are often overcrowded, causing health and social problems to the
detriment of their occupants. They are also a nuisance for the wider
area, causing issues such as excessive car parking, which sometimes
occurs in student areas, and waste collection problems. My hon. Friend
will recall that I wrote to her on 14 January outlining how the
proposed changes and new regime might work in her constituency, and I
am keen to work with her to follow that up.
If additional licensing is
introduced in a local authority area and a landlord refuses to obtain a
licence for a property, the local authority could prosecute the
landlord, and the courts could award a fine of up to £20,000. I
think that that addresses the point made by my hon. Friend the Member
for West Ham that the level of punishment needs to be commensurate with
the level of rents that the landlord may be fleecing from the tenant.
Similarly, if a landlord breaches the conditions of a licence, such as
the level of occupancy, for example, the courts could fine the landlord
up to £5,000 for committing a criminal offence. I imagine that
my hon. Friend agrees that the penalty will have a real bite on
non-compliance.
Grant
Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con): I support the direction of
the new clause, inasmuch as I know from my experience of representing a
university town—Hertfordshire university is in
Hatfield—that many of the problems mentioned by hon. Members are
very real. Will the Minister accept that many local authorities do not
have the resources to do the kind of checking or to make the sort of
investigations that would lead to the severe fines and penalties that
he outlines? Is that not one of the problems with the existing
legislation, let alone with further amendments to
it?
Mr.
Wright:
I suggest that local authorities need to target
resources according to the particular concerns of the residents and
pressure from elected members and hon. Members. The approach that my
hon. Friends have taken is, I know, close to hand because of the media
interest. Indeed, because of the tremendous campaigning work that my
hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham has done, I know that she is
pushing a reluctant local authority, and I pay tribute to her for what
she has achieved. That is the way to deal with possible
burdens.
In addition,
the Housing Act 2004 offers local authorities the power to serve
overcrowding notices on non-licensable HMOs, such as houses that do not
fall under mandatory selective or additional licensing schemes, should
there be a risk to the safety and welfare of occupants. We will talk
about overcrowding later, but the overcrowding notice must specify the
maximum number of persons for which a room is suitable for use as
sleeping accommodation, or that a room is unsuitable to be used as
sleeping accommodation.
Local authorities can develop
their own overcrowding standards on room sizes for privately rented
HMOs, and houses that do not comply with the standard can be served
with an overcrowding notice. If the landlord or manager of the property
breaches the notice conditions, an offence is committed, and they can
be fined up to £2,500.
Lyn
Brown:
Will the Minister accept that it is difficult for
councils to identify those homes that are currently massively
overcrowded, as they do not need to be licensed? There are many streets
in my area where people live in temporary accommodation or houses in
multiple occupation, because of the way in which the housing market is
going. That is the result of, first, the pressures caused by property
in east London being cheaper than property elsewhere in London, which
makes it an attractive buy for people who want to get their first foot
on the housing ladder in London, and, secondly, the building work
taking place in Stratford. Because of those concerns, it would be so
much easier if all HMOs needed a licence. It is harder for the council
to identify those houses that are not expected to have or do not need a
licence.
Mr.
Wright:
My hon. Friend has brought me nicely on to my next
point, which has also been alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for
City of Durham, namely the review of the private rented sector that my
right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing announced
yesterday—she may have referred to it when giving evidence in
December. I do not expect it to act as a magic wand—the review
will not solve all the problems overnight—but it will be
important to collect the evidence, as it will allow us to move forward
on future legislative proposals. In a moment, I shall mention certain
things that are in the terms of reference of the private sector review
that will help with my hon. Friends’ concerns. I urge them to
contribute to the review, and I will ensure that they can speak to
those who are carrying it out.
Margaret
Moran:
I want to reinforce the point. Is the
Minister aware that my constituency is another low-cost area? People
come from London, because it is cheaper to rent in Luton. My hon.
Friend the Member for West Ham has mentioned people living in sheds and
garages, which are not caught by existing legislation because no one
perceived that people would convert such buildings—indeed, some
of those places are not converted, and people are living in
outbuildings. Unscrupulous landlords are exploiting poor migrant
workers and others, which is not caught by the existing legislation.
Will the Minister ensure that that is covered by the
review?
9.30
am
Mr.
Wright:
On the broader point, that is why I welcome my
hon. Friend’s support for a massive increase in the supply of
housing, particularly social housing. We need to address the imbalance
between housing demand and supply, which is what the Bill tries to
do.
Let me mention
several of the issues that the private rented sector review will look
into, because I think that that will address the points raised by my
hon. Friends. One issue that the review will consider is very
interesting, given that my hon. Friends who tabled the new clause
represent two distinct areas, with different characteristics and
different problems—West Ham is not the same as Durham. The
review will look at the composition and regional characteristics of the
private rented sector, who lives in it and who the providers are. I
want to collect the evidence that my hon. Friends have provided to
contribute to the review.
Another
issue, which picks up the point raised by my hon. Friends about migrant
workers being exploited, is what impact demographic and social change
might have on future demand and supply pressures in the sector and how
key players should respond. The review will also consider future
regulation and examine what more could or should be done, given the
recent regulatory changes, to ensure that we have a professionally
managed quality sector to meet demand pressures. Finally, there is the
issue of tenant and landlord views and experiences of the sector. What
are their priorities for change, and how can those priorities
contribute to policy development?
I urge my hon. Friends to
contribute to the review to ensure that it is as robust as possible,
and I shall invite them to talk to Julie Rugg and David Rhodes from the
centre for housing policy at York university, who will be carrying out
the review. It is important that we have my hon. Friends’
experiences, anecdotes and evidence, and the people leading the review
could go to West Ham and Durham to find out what is going on in the
private rented sector to ensure that they are as informed as they can
be, so that any future legislative changes are made with the greatest
authority.
Mr.
Robert Syms (Poole) (Con): The Minister
will be aware that high levels of students cause problems in certain
areas as a result of what is called studentification. I have listened
carefully to him, and I assume that the review of the private rented
sector will pick up some of the problems in areas where high levels of
students have an impact on the housing
market.
Mr.
Wright:
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if
I did not make myself clear—or perhaps he came in slightly
later—but I have mentioned the problems of studentification. As
I have said, we are about to consult on the use classes order. The
problem has certainly been raised with me; I have responsibility for
it; and I am keen to look into it.
I hope that I have covered in
depth some of the issues that my hon. Friends have rightly raised. With
the greatest respect, however, I must tell them that the new clause
does not achieve anything that cannot be achieved via existing
statutory provisions for regulating the private sector, such as
additional licensing and overcrowding notices. However, there are
certain concerns, which we will need to tackle when we are looking
further afield as part of the private sector review. Given what I have
said and the fact that I am extraordinarily sympathetic to my hon.
Friends and want to help them as much as possible, I hope that I will
be invited back to the beautiful city of Durham and to West
Ham—I want to go on tour. In the light of what I have said and
of my sympathy for my hon. Friends and their great campaigning work, I
hope that they will consider withdrawing the new
clause.
Dr.
Blackman-Woods:
I thank the Minister for his generous
comments and for the sympathetic way in which he has approached the
issues. As my hon. Friends the Members for West Ham and for Luton,
South have demonstrated, we need to re-examine the issue, regardless of
the circumstances that lead to areas having a lot of private rented
housing. We also need to consider extending not only mandatory
licensing, but use class orders as they affect HMOs, as the Minister
has said.
The Minister has given us a lot
of information about the private rented sector review, and he has
generously stated that we can be involved. I shall be happy to welcome
him back to Durham to talk to local landlords, students and others. We
shall certainly present the evidence that he has requested. Because of
the review that was announced yesterday, I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the motion.
Motion
and clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
The
Chairman:
Having, as the Americans say, gotten up hours
ago, I have now woken up, and it has dawned on me that this
afternoon’s business is likely to involve a certain amount of
interruption. I suspect that there will be several votes in the House
that will inevitably entail the suspension of the Committee, so that we
shall lose time. I know that it is Thursday afternoon and that some
hon. Members have a long distance to go back to their constituencies,
but I am in the hands of the Committee. Ordinarily, as hon. Members
know, we do not sit for more than three hours without a break, but
given that there will be breaks for votes, if the Committee wishes to
have injury time and to sit for longer, which is, again, a matter for
the usual channels, I see no reason why we should not sit until the
rise of the House.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 25 January 2008 |