Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce a proposal in a probing amendment on an important matter. However, before I start to describe it, I should like to draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. I write articles for Housing Today and receive some support on research from Shelter. The gang of four—my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), for Edmonton (Mr. Love) and I—have been pushing the issue for some years. Some passion will be expressed this morning, and possibly later in our deliberations,

because this is the single most important matter in housing policy.

I supported the Bill on Second Reading last week, and I support it again this morning. I want the balance to be redressed. There is so much in the Bill that is important in helping us tackle serious problems in the delivery of housing standards, particularly in the private rented sector, for houses in multiple occupation and elsewhere. However, there is a glaring omission. We do not have the piece of work that would help us tackle the problem that afflicts social housing and some tenants renting privately, primarily in the south of England. It must be recognised that in housing policy, and in other areas including social policy, we have to deal with—[Interruption.] I love that fire alarm test announcement; it has no meaning whatever.

We must address the fact that two separate approaches are needed on housing policy. The real and serious problems of low demand, and the abuses that that can lead to—how some private landlords deal with their stock—must be dealt with. However, although there are some exceptions, that problem does not apply to much of the south of England, because it is plagued by high demand. This group of amendments, including the new clause, seeks to redress that balance.

In recognition of that fact, which I accept the Government have acknowledged, we recently set a target to end the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for families with children. I was thrilled by the setting of that ambitious target, which we are on the way to meeting. However, that has a perverse consequence—a problem that runs parallel to it. Families in secure tenancies are living in conditions as bad as, and in many cases worse than, those experienced by people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I say ''perverse'' because for admirable, sensible reasons, local authorities are trying to prioritise moving families out of bed-and-breakfast and temporary accommodation because that costs money. It does not really cost any money to maintain families in highly overcrowded conditions. Priority is given to moving people from temporary accommodation.

The housing health and safety rating system—which will be subjected to some tweaking during the Committee's deliberations—is a step forward. One of the things that it is designed to do is tackle hazards arising from overcrowding and lack of space, but it will be used only alongside the existing statutory overcrowding standards. As was discussed on Second Reading, that continues to be based on—and to reinforce the use of—unacceptable and out-of-date standards dating from the 1930s and even the 19th century.

I seek to replace the definition of overcrowding in section 324 of the Housing Act 1985 with one that includes ''the bedroom standard'' in addition to ''the space standard'', and to do away with the room standard proposals, with which I and other hon. Members have difficulty. I want the statutory definition to be brought up to date by introducing the new bedroom standard based on the measure of

the English house condition survey and by updating the space standards.

The proposals contain many technical considerations, and I would like them be adopted at some stage. However, we have rehearsed the relevant arguments so I do not intend to discuss the long list of proposals in detail—to debate what could be introduced to determine measurement and usable space. A key component is the removal of the expectation that a child up to the age of 10 is counted only as half a unit and, in so doing, allowing us also to update some of the gender expectations. Under current bedroom standards, it is theoretically possible for an unlimited number of children of the same sex to share a bedroom. In practice, it is completely unrealistic to allow that to continue, as every parent knows.

By retaining the status quo—by not agreeing to my proposals, or something similar that the Government might adopt at a later stage—we are continuing to reinforce a chronic problem that is serious and worsening. I have spent 14 years in public life as a local councillor and a Member of Parliament, and it is clear that the problem is spiralling out of control in much of London and the south-east.

A mere glance at the statistics of the English house condition survey show the extent of the problem that we face in London. Even on the current inadequate statistical measurement, 178,000 households are at least one bedroom below the acceptable standard. That is 6 per cent. of the total housing stock, which is double the UK average, and three times more than that which prevails in most boroughs—in the east midlands, for example. The figure for the north-east is only 1 per cent., but I am aware that it has other housing problems and I am delighted that that is not one of them.

The problem is serious, worsening and concentrated in the south-east. As has been said, if the status quo is maintained, it will be possible for there to be chronic overcrowding by any acceptable modern standard and for the ludicrously high hurdle in existing legislation still not to be cleared. I and other hon. Members have been told of many relevant cases. A family of six with twins of two, a seven-year-old and a baby count only as three and a half units for the bedroom standard, which is regarded as completely acceptable and not at all overcrowded under existing legislation.

In addition to the difficulty of clearing that hurdle, the lack of clarity in legislation leads to inconsistent determinations and policies. One of my local authorities, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, does not prioritise chronically overcrowded families via a homelessness-at-home policy, but the other one—Westminster city council, which also covers the constituency of another Committee member—does so. Therefore, of two families with identical circumstances of overcrowding, living 200 yd from each other in the same inner-city community, only one might be regarded as statutorily overcrowded and be removed, or placed on the waiting list to be removed, because their accommodation was not regarded as suitable to occupy.

In one case—and I am still working with the local authority to deal with it—that I used as an illustration in the debate, I was told, although I have not had an original letter from Kensington and Chelsea council confirming it, that a family of seven living in a two-bedroom flat were initially advised to create a bedroom in the space under their stairs. That lack of clarity about which rooms or areas in a dwelling can legally be used to provide a sleeping space results in inconsistent decisions and advice. Vulnerable families are losing out as a result.

In addition, families are falling through the net because of the way in which decisions are implemented. Since the debate, during last Friday's advice surgery, a family of a mother, father and three-year-old child came to me with a letter from Queen's Park Sure Start programme; Sure Start was worried about the child's safety. I discovered that 12 people—at least three households—were sharing a two-bedroom flat. There were 10 adults and two babies. When I pursued the matter, Westminster City council told me that it had already accepted a duty to rehouse the couple and child. However, there is another child in the flat whom we do not even know about.

The council accepted that duty because it regards the property as unreasonable to occupy. It has placed the family on the housing waiting list, but they are at No. 241. On current standards, they will be in their present accommodation for anything up to another year. I do not understand how anyone could interpret even the provisions of the 1985 Act as meaning that it is reasonable for 12 people to share a two-bedroom property.

It is essential that there is some clarity and modernity in our approach to the process. Of course local authorities are concerned about the implications for their housing stock but, as I have said, the core problem is a decline in the number of properties available for letting over a long period. The problem is not particularly to do with household change and an increasing number of applications. It is in no way acceptable for us to trap people in the conditions that I have mentioned, sometimes for years, simply because there are competing pressures on the housing stock and to avoid raising expectations.

We did not take that attitude to bed and breakfast, which is a comparable example. We did not say, ''There are a number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and that is utterly appalling, but there are many other competing demands on the local authority's housing stock, so we will not act.'' We were right to take the decision, and it would be equally right to translate that approach to stock.

There are a number of knock-on effects that we should also try to untangle, including the ludicrous situation whereby, because registered social landlords are setting their own policies on not overcrowding stock, they turn down nominations from overcrowded households and give priority to less overcrowded households. On a number of occasions, I have found

that families of five have been turned down for a two-bedroom nomination because technically they need three-bedroom accommodation. As there are no three-bedroom nominations available, and they have to wait five years for one, we are trapping the most needy families in the most intense deprivation. Until we untangle some of those problems, and send out the message that we want a modern approach to the problem, those difficulties will continue.

Now is the time. We have to seize the opportunity offered by the Bill to prevent a serious problem from becoming a great deal worse. If we do not, we will be failing hundreds of thousands of households in London and the south-east, and a few in other parts of the country—whose opportunities we have vigorously embraced on every other count through our anti-poverty strategy, the decent homes initiative, and so forth—and we will not have an opportunity in the next decade to pass legislation, to enact it, to work out the implications and to start delivering.

This is a probing amendment, and I will not press it to a Division, but for the sake of those families to whom I have referred I ask the Government to take full cognisance of our request, and to return with a commitment to legislate along these lines in the Bill.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I shall speak to amendments Nos. 214 and 215. They are probing amendments, and I will address them only briefly because I wish to return to the central thrust of this debate, which is overcrowding. The amendments are related to that subject, but their scope is wider than it. The intention behind them is to understand the Government's thinking on the interrelationship between the new rating system and the old standards, as they apply to HMOs. Although we will debate HMOs at length later, it is important to understand the matter in the context of this debate.

The 1985 Act imposed a number of standards that HMOs must meet. They were different—more absolute—than those in the new rating system. Some of those trying to understand the new ratings are concerned that, by entirely removing the existing system and becoming totally dependent on the new one, there might be reduced protection. I am sure that the Government do not want that to be the case.

The Bill repeals sections 345 to 400 of the 1985 Act. Their standards will no longer apply to HMOs—for them, the physical standards mentioned in the amendments will cease to exist. We are concerned that, as environmental officers learn to deal with the new system, mistakes might be made: HMOs might be allowed to continue operating when they would not have been allowed to do so under the old system.

There is a particular concern with regard to fire standards, on which I would like the Minister to comment. Groups such as Shelter are concerned that the old standards in the 1985 Act were effective in improving the overall fire prevention methods and investment in HMOs and that—although I do not wish the absolute flaw of the 1985 Act to go into the new system—such a positive development might be reduced.

To return to the main point of the debate, the Committee owes the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) and the other members of the gang of four a debt of gratitude because they have been persistent and effective parliamentary champions of housing reform. My only regret is that the hon. Lady said that her amendments were probing. It would be nice to test the Government a little more. However, I am sure that she has her own tactics.

We must recognise the significance of the campaign and the amendments. Overcrowding is not just about poor housing conditions; it has an effect on the health, education and behaviour of families and young children. There is nothing worse for the health of a young family than dangerous overcrowding: when a family member gets an infection, it can readily spread. Other consequences such as those to do with mental health are less immediately obvious. The health of the nation is hugely damaged when a large number of our people are in overcrowded accommodation.

Education is another significant area. The Government have been piloting and promoting after-school clubs and so on where children can do their homework. However, many children have to return to flats and homes where they cannot concentrate because their younger siblings or parents are watching television, having a meal, or going about their normal activities, and there is no place for the student to sit and study.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

Is not the ability of any family member to get a decent night's sleep in overcrowded conditions often severely limited? There is much evidence that when young people's sleep is interrupted, their ability to concentrate and learn at school is seriously damaged. Not just homework but performance at school suffers while living in such conditions.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

My hon. Friend makes a good point that adds to what I was saying. If parents are not able to get a good night's sleep, they could underperform at work. Thus, the economy is less productive. That might be dangerous in certain occupations when a person needs to concentrate and has responsibility for others' safety. There are many reasons why the problem is real.

The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North mentioned her constituency. I should like to cite an example from mine: the local authority told a young couple with a teenager in a two-bedroom property that their new twins could sleep in the galley kitchen. I was shocked by that response—but it was legal. I was concerned for the safety and health of those young children, as was the health visitor. That is where the new standards—the room standard in particular—fail so dramatically.

Not a surgery goes by without an overcrowding issue being raised. The hon. Lady represents an inner-London constituency and mine is in the suburbs. Overcrowding is rife, but we are not able to do much about it, partly because of the lack of affordable housing. Let us be clear that the Bill is not an overall solution. Laws do not solve such problems, and they

will not build any new homes. However, the Bill will put pressure on the Government, the civil service and local authorities to recognise that there is a problem. Moreover, it will develop the housing debate.

The hon. Lady is correct. The Government have targeted bed-and-breakfast accommodation and have begun to make significant progress, which adds to the strength of her case. If we had a modern definition of overcrowding, we would be able to show to the press and public that there is a housing crisis even though they do not realise it. Housing is often so low on the political agenda because the press are interested in how fast house prices are rising rather than overcrowding. If there were a new, modern definition that led to stories in the press and debates in the media every year, the public would understand that there is a major housing crisis and that people are living in unacceptable conditions. That would develop consensus in the country on securing the housing investment that we need and making the issue a priority. That is why the Bill is so important. Although it may not build an extra house, it will move the debate forward.

My brief from Shelter says that the legislation has not changed since 1935. It is interesting to note the assurances given by the then Minister for Health, Sir Hilton Young, who brought in those 1935 standards. He said:

''The standard laid down need not be regarded as the ultimate ideal to which we should work. It is one upon which it is possible to begin to get this reform under way.''—[Official Report, 30 January 1935; Vol. 297, c. 364.]

Even in 1935 they realised that the standard was hardly an ideal solution. Some 70 years later we ought to be doing better.

The Minister for Housing and Planning has had much sympathy with the case, as have many Ministers who have held his position in recent years. He has to box in a clever and sophisticated way to answer the campaign and not commit the Government too far. However, I want him to go beyond his brief today, to take a risk and to undertake to return to the Committee after more work has been done. I accept that the Bill covers some overcrowding issues, but many people believe that it does not go far enough. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North says it all.

The room space standards under the 1985 Act are ineffective. They lead to some outrageous situations, as the hon. Lady and I have described. It really is time that the Government used their majority and belief in such matters to do something. I forget who said on Second Reading that the Bill was good but that it could be historic. If the Government took action on overcrowding, they would elevate the Bill to that status—of which the Minister, the Government, the Labour party and this Parliament could be proud.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

This is an interesting and important beginning to our consideration of the Bill. It brings us to the heart of the debate that will no doubt continue throughout our discussions on the first part, which concerns defining fitness and reaching a judgment on

the various factors that affect the condition of housing. The Bill sets out an ambitious set of changes in respect of redefining fitness, and members of the Committee will be familiar with the draft guidance, which has been made available to us, about the new system. The notable factor is that it introduces into our consideration of housing conditions a range of issues that are associated with risk and the balance between the condition of housing and the activity of the occupants. Essentially, housing fitness in terms of risk is a marriage between the condition of housing and the nature and behaviour—the habit—of the occupants.

I shall not go through the guidance in comprehensive detail now, but it deals with crowding and space. Overcrowding has already been mentioned. Indeed, the psychological factors in the draft guidance such as space, security, light and noise are a broad range of considerations that I am sure all members of the Committee will acknowledge. Crowding and space are defined specifically as a type of hazard. The category includes

''all hazards threatening health that are associated with lack of space and crowding.''

I have no wish to do the Minister's job for him, but I have no doubt that he will refer to such matters because they go some way to satisfy some of the points that have been made so far in Committee—although I am not saying that they go the whole way. I said that because I thought that the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North was about to intervene and I wanted to save her the trouble of doing so.

The draft guidance goes considerably further. Indeed, after reading it, one is almost frightened to go home. It refers to burns, shocks, fires, scalds and difficulties with falls that are associated with stairs and steps, which most of us have in our houses. It covers falls on the level, too, because we can fall over without climbing steps. The guidance then deals with serious matters that are associated with a range of measures that could be introduced to prevent different accidents. It seems ambitious to expand how we assess fitness by defining a series of risks that bring together considerations about housing conditions and considerations about occupants. That is an important step to take and one with which the Opposition have considerable sympathy. We could hardly not have sympathy, given that we are mindful that poor accommodation contributes substantially to other social problems, particularly poor health.

The British Medical Association report, ''Housing and health: building for the future''—which I know that hon. Members will be intimately familiar with—makes it quite clear that

''research findings are generally consistent and a link between poor housing and ill health is widely accepted.''

Studies have established the risk to physical and mental health from specific factors associated with poor-quality housing. The BMA points out that those are associated not only with existing ill health, but with increasing ill health. It lists a series of housing conditions: cold, damp, mould, indoor pollutants and

infestation, and overcrowding. It says that overcrowding creates an increased risk of infection, respiratory disease and reduced stature. I am not saying that the stature of any member of this Committee could be reduced, but I am saying that overcrowding is an important element in adding to problems associated with bad housing, and that the link between it and poor health is a serious consideration.

The BMA report considers fitness standards and states:

''The standards used to assess dwelling fitness have been criticised for focusing more on the existence of a hazard rather than the consequences for the occupant.''

That statement is associated with the comments that we have already heard, and I suspect that it will be with those that we hear when we consider part 1. Linking the existence of a hazard to the consequences is fundamental. When we debate a coming group of amendments, I will discuss ability and disability. I do not want to anticipate that by going into too much detail about it. However, it is particularly relevant to the consideration of how we assess the relationship of occupants to those matters.

Overcrowding is clearly a factor in fitness, in the quality of life that people enjoy and in contributing to possible problems of ill health. Indeed, the BMA makes specific reference to overcrowding on page 32 of its report. It states:

''Overcrowding is more prevalent in low-income households. It is associated with a range of diseases, including tuberculosis and respiratory infection, and mental ill health. Adult mortality patterns are associated with household overcrowding''.

It also mentions other factors such as the

''lack of a fixed hot water supply in childhood.''

Crowding in childhood can lead to a series of concerns, including

''adult rates of stomach cancer.''

It is clear that the impact of overcrowding in early life has significant repercussions for people as they grow older. I have some sympathy with the comments that have been made and I await the Minister's response. In his defence, as I have said, reference is made to those matters in the new guidance. The question for the Committee is whether that reference is sufficient to point people—those who have responsibility for enforcing the standards—in the right direction, or whether we need something more, as earlier contributors suggested. I give the Minister this first and important opportunity to persuade me that he is right and that previous speakers are misguided.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

The Committee owes a debt to the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North for raising this vital issue, and to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton for his amendment. I am interested to know whether he feels that the two proposals for a new paragraph (c) to clause 1(1) tally with each other. I think that both hon. Members are talking about the same thing. Perhaps it is appropriate to declare what I call my reverse financial interest. Since the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill was discussed in

Committee, I have retired from my position as fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute. I have also taken the liberty of retiring from the Royal Institute of British Architects, although I still have to pay that organisation money to be retired. That is money going in the wrong direction for me, but in the right direction for the purposes of the Register of Members' Interests. I am also an honorary fellow of the Faculty of Building, an honorary fellow of the Association of Building Engineers and an honorary member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Again, not a penny has passed between us.

It is interesting that the first amendment comes from a Labour Back Bencher; I hope that that sets a happy precedent. You and I were Government Whips some years ago, Mr. Conway. Our policy was to discourage our colleagues from saying anything.

Mr Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

Surely not.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is quite right—of course not.

The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North underlines the Bill's importance to all our constituents, whatever part of the United Kingdom we represent. No fewer than five Committee members represent seats in the Greater London area. This issue may be important in Regent's Park and Kensington, North, but it is also important in my constituency.

As I am sure other hon. Members have found, constituents frequently give patent examples of overcrowding, but due to pressure on accommodation, particularly in London—I cannot speak for other parts of the United Kingdom—housing authorities apply only the letter of the law, but sadly not its spirit. I am at one with the hon. Members for Regent's Park and Kensington, North and for Kingston and Surbiton on that issue. Successive Governments have not tackled the problem properly—I willingly concede that. We have a real opportunity to deal with the matter, which is of such importance.

The hon. Lady has obviously done her homework. I have studied with care not only her two amendments, but her new clause 17, which goes into detail on bedroom and space standards. She should be applauded for putting them in a table, on which we can comment and which will give guidance.

I always have to remind myself of the constituency name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings. There are some exotic, if not esoteric, constituency names represented on this Committee. Perhaps this is the time to say that Chipping Barnet is actually in London, and does not nestle easily in the Cotswolds.

This is a vital issue, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Mr Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

Many of the problems described also relate to my own constituents. On a personal note, as one who needs a 7 ft bed to be comfortable at night, I have much sympathy with some of the issues mentioned by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North.

In any question about the allocation of scarce resources, it is important to consider both the supply and the demand sides. Will the Minister comment on his Department's projections on and analysis of housing demand in London and the south-east, particularly in relation to people allocated work permits, and to the 10 new European Union accession countries, whose citizens will have the right to come to the UK from 1 May this year? Will he comment briefly on the effects of that on housing and overcrowding in London and the south-east?

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire for that question, which I will reflect on and attempt to deal with—in due course, if not immediately. We have had a genuinely passionate and well-informed debate.

I should like to respond, in as much detail and as sympathetically as I can, to the powerful arguments that have been made about overcrowding. However, with your indulgence and that of the Committee, Mr. Conway, I will preface my response to the debate on overcrowding by giving an overview of part 1. Far be it from me to criticise the procedures of the House, but one of the disadvantages of the way in which we conduct our business is that, very often, we become immediately engrossed in the detail of amendments to clauses, and to that extent we tend to lose the bigger picture. So let me, with the agreement of the Committee, set out the big picture as far as part 1 is concerned, responding to the broader issues raised by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. I want to portray, for the benefit of colleagues, I hope, the overall concept of the Bill—a concept often described by psychologists as the ''gestalt'' or, as the late, great Beveridge put it, the ''tour d'horizon''.

Part 1 provides for the introduction of a new system for assessing housing conditions. It provides for such a system to be used in the enforcement of housing standards. The new system, known as the housing health and safety rating system, replaces the fitness standard which, although it is currently in the Housing Act 1985, dates back 80 years. In 1998 and 2001 we consulted on proposals to move away from the fitness standard. Both of those exercises revealed wide support for reform. I agree with the view, expressed by one of my hon. Friends on Second Reading, that the fitness standard really should have been overhauled before now.

Part 1 contains important and, dare I say it, landmark measures that pave the way for a new way of looking at housing conditions. Under the current fitness standard a local authority assesses a property against nine criteria. If it fails on one of those criteria, the local authority officer has to question whether the property is reasonably suitable for occupation as a result of that failure. If it is not, it is unfit. Once a local authority has decided whether a property is unfit, it has a duty to deal with it in the most appropriate way.

The current system pays some attention to the needs of the occupier of a property, but does not do so in a very objective or transparent way. That is why we are

changing to the housing health and safety rating system. We believe that it will bring about a major improvement in the methodology for assessing conditions in dwellings, flats and houses in multiple occupation, described in the Bill as ''residential premises''. The system will focus on the impact of these conditions on the health and safety of the occupants of the premises by enabling the systematic assessment of hazards within the dwelling. In other words, it is a process of identifying the defect, assessing the potential risk and then relating that risk to the occupiers of the premises. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is absolutely right in his analysis of the purposes of the housing health and safety rating system. There are a considerable number of factors to be taken into account—29 in all, instead of the nine currently addressed under the fitness standard. The new system will enable local authorities to prioritise the action needed on housing in their area.

Quite simply, the finding of unfitness under the current standard triggers a duty for the local authority to take enforcement action. So will a finding of a severe hazard under the new rating system trigger a duty to act? There are two key differences between the current and new systems. The first is that the new system is person-centred rather than building-centred. In the immortal phrase, it concerns not the defect, but the effect of the defect. The second difference is that the process of deciding whether action needs to be taken will be more systematic and transparent under the new system. We are placing health and safety considerations at the forefront of our drive to improve housing conditions for the most vulnerable people.

After providing for the details of the rating system to be specified, part 1 goes on to set out the enforcement powers and duties that local authorities will apply. Those are adapted from the existing provisions of the 1985 Act, which has been referred to frequently. As the Committee progresses through part 1, I shall show that the powers give authorities considerable flexibility to tailor the action that they take to the circumstances that they find, with particular reference to the impact of a dwelling's conditions on the people who live there.

In the context of local authorities' powers, it is perhaps appropriate to mention that the Government have responded to the Select Committee's recommendation that local authorities should be able to take emergency action. Such action would deal with serious hazards that present an imminent risk of serious harm to the occupiers of residential premises. I tabled amendments that will have that effect and I shall move them when appropriate. They will complete the menu of options that the Bill will give to authorities, ranging from emergency action at one end of the scale to a simple notification that hazard exists at the other.

Naturally, I look forward to discussing the system and the enforcement powers in more detail as the Committee progresses through part 1. Members of the Committee will be aware that, to assist discussion, I

made available two important documents just before Christmas. The first is a draft of the so-called version 2 of the housing health and safety rating system; the other is draft enforcement guidance, which gives local authorities information and advice about the duties and powers to be conferred upon them by the Bill. I hope that further copies of those documents will be available to the Committee for the convenience of its members.

I hope that I have been sufficiently brief, and have not strained the patience of Committee members, in putting part 1 in context for the purposes of the current debate and our ensuing discussions and debates.

Amendments Nos. 214 and 215 were moved by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. Hon. Members will be aware that the housing health and safety rating system and the enforcement provisions in part 1 apply to all housing stock, including HMOs. Therefore, to establish separate physical standards for certain kinds of housing stock would have the effect of removing HMOs from the purview of the rating system or, alternatively, would set up the possibility of conflicts between the hazard assessment process in part 1 and predetermined physical standards.

I fully recognise that there are important ways in which HMOs are not like other stock; that is precisely why the Government undertook to introduce a licensing system for HMOs and why, indeed, part 2 exists. There is nothing in the physical characteristics of HMOs that makes the health and safety rating system an unsuitable means of assessing their physical condition.

I do not want to protract this part of the proceedings unduly, and it is my positive desire to describe, in due course and in some detail, how the system will work. We will certainly come to the fire issues, because an amendment has been tabled on that subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), and that will shortly be the occasion of a debate. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) is a great authority on those matters, and I do not intend to evade debate on those issues. However, in fairness we recognise that the process of inspecting an HMO under the new system will be a bit more complex than assessing an ordinary house, because individual living spaces, and the shared facilities that are attributable to them, must be looked at.

This is not the moment to abandon all the work and consultation, and the agreement secured on the new system. Instead, we must recognise that the additional points on houses in multiple occupation relate to their use and management, rather than their physical characteristics, which might be shared across the entire housing stock. In part 2 we have, therefore, taken care to ensure that the health and safety rating system and HMO licensing will work together effectively. Under the licensing regime in part 2, and possibly through management orders under part 4, the local authority is required to pursue a persistent failure of management to comply with the requirements of part 1.

Clause 44 places a duty on local authorities to ensure that all licensable HMOs are assessed under part 1 as soon as is reasonably practicable.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

It seems to me that the Minister was suggesting, appropriately, that this system might be reviewed regularly. The change that he described in his opening remarks on making the contextual issues clear is profound. Was he saying that due to the complexity of that change, and the interrelationship between the complex factors contributing to fitness—both the physical factors and the human factors—it will be reviewed regularly with a view to developing an informed opinion about how those factors interrelate and the balance of their importance?

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

It is a bit of a cod answer, which Governments always produce, to say that we keep all our proposals, policies and practices under review. Of course we are aware that this is a new, more complex system and that a degree of training will be required for environmental health officers. The start-up kit will have to be issued. We shall keep all those matters under review.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

The right hon. Gentleman is not going to get away with that. Let me put my question more clearly. I was being excessively polite. Given the complexity and newness of the change, and the uncertainties about matters such as overcrowding, will the Minister commit himself to returning to the House in, say, a year's time? Then he can give a review of how the change has been implemented and progressed, and how local authorities are finding that the balance between the various factors works in practice. If he were prepared to provide such a review, the whole House would, on the basis of that evidence, be able to consider the matter much more carefully.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

I notice that the hon. Gentleman is toughening up his act. However, I am unable to make the commitment to return to the House with such a review, if only because I suspect that it would create a degree of uncertainty among local authorities, which must make commitments in that regard, and practitioners. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have made the requirement for the stock survey to be conducted as soon as practicable. We are regularly in touch with local authorities about their experiences of such matters, and we will continue to be so during the implementation of the new system. I give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that if the Government find that the system is not working as effectively as we desire, we will seriously re-examine it. If it does not work as satisfactorily as we hoped and there are major problems with it, my experience is that local authorities will not be backward in coming forward to raise their concerns. In broad terms, I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we will not lose sight of the matter. I dare say that, in our long and fruitful relationship as opposite numbers in housing matters, the hon. Gentleman will certainly want to come back to me on such matters several years into the future. I look forward to that.

Let me conclude my observations by saying that we believe that one of the great advantages of the new

system will be that it offers a much more targeted approach to risks in households. The risk assessment approach of the system will provide the opportunity for local authorities to ensure that defects, dangers and risks in their housing stock are dealt with in a prioritised fashion.

Forgive me for having taken a long time to explain such issues, but I hope that I have not been unhelpful. I now come to overcrowding, an issue that dominated the early part of our debate. It goes without saying that I recognise and appreciate the profound interest that my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North has taken in the problem of overcrowding. I pay tribute to her, to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, who is not in Committee this morning, and to the other two members of the gang of four, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North referred, for persistence in pursuing such matters. We have had formal meetings on the matter and some informal exchanges about it. I note that my hon. Friend's amendments to clause 1 were intended to increase the statutory overcrowding standards in part X of the 1985 Act up to the level of the higher bedroom standard, which has been the basis for the statistical measure of overcrowding for several years.

My hon. Friend and I have similar constituencies. Mine has the distinctly unesoteric title of Streatham, but other than that they are both inner-London constituencies. They are similar in their social composition and diversity and in the character of their housing stock. Other hon. Members who represent London constituencies have already referred to such issues. The fact is that overcrowding, while not unique to London, is very much concentrated in the capital city. We reckon that about 60 per cent. of overcrowding is located in London.

I absolutely understand from where my hon. Friend and the hon. Members for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) and for Kingston and Surbiton are coming. The hundreds of advice surgeries that I have held as a Member of Parliament and the thousands of constituents whom I have met have shown that overcrowding has been a consistent worry. Frankly, and for what it is worth, it is a matter of great personal anguish to me to hear of the circumstances in which some of my constituents are forced to live. In particular, my heart goes out to those good, decent families who, although they always paid their rent up to date, moved into their flat when there was one child in the family, have since had one or two more, and are now forced to live in an unsatisfactory situation.

There are cases of parents sleeping apart, and sometimes of living rooms and other parts of the household being used as bedrooms. On occasion, even the kitchen may be used as a place to sleep. That is unacceptable and we need to do something about that, but there are really difficult issues of prioritisation and resources. I want to refer to them, at least briefly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North and I are familiar with each other's position on the issues. I know that she is aware of the

Government's anxieties about the effect of bringing in a step change in the overcrowding standards. Indeed, so are the other members of the gang of four, my hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Bow and for Edmonton. They, of course, introduced a Bill on the subject last Session and are familiar with my responses to them in discussions on those issues.

I have to make it clear that the Government do not defend the current overcrowding standards to the letter; those standards are obviously out of date. However, we need to consider what purpose would be served by raising the standards right now, and what the effect would be. Do we want an effect, or are we simply making a symbolic gesture? The issue is one of resources and priorities. Local authorities already have a pretty good idea of the degree of overcrowding in their area, but they have to balance the needs of overcrowded people against those of the homeless and those in poor temporary accommodation whose needs are more urgent. If we raise the standards, we sharpen the issue of priorities for local authorities. Even with current resources, the number of more affordable lettings means that local authorities have to tackle the worst cases first.

Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

But does my right hon. Friend accept that there are a number of cases—one of which I alluded to—in which, because of the way that current policy setting, regulations and law interact, families with lower priority get rehousing advantages before those with higher priority? That is one reason why I would like greater clarity in legislation.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

I do accept what my hon. Friend says, and I undertake to look at that precise issue so that, although those circumstances might not operate in very many cases, a clear injustice can be resolved. Obviously, I cannot commit to resolving the issue, but I undertake to consider it in greater detail.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

Further to the comment made by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, I am sure that the Minister is not misleading the Committee, but homeless people would not be badly affected if the amendment were made. On my understanding, the amendment would in no way disadvantage homeless people. It is trying to ensure that overcrowding is seen as a housing issue. It would not necessarily lead to a change in the way that local housing authorities decided between people in housing need; it would simply mean that incidents were recorded so that we could use that information to guide housing policy. Unless I have misunderstood, the amendment would not force the Government to change their current prioritisation of housing investment, but it might inform the Government's debate about those issues in future.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

I am sorry if I appear to have misled the hon. Gentleman. But let me put it like this: the amendment will not simply be a source of information, but will lay an obligation on authorities to act. My recollection is that the effect of the ten-minute Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton would have been to bring something of the order of 500,000 homes into the ambit of the

overcrowding standards. It is an issue that I will explain to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton.

With regard to housing issues, the Government are currently committing very large amounts of resources, first, to the decent homes programme, where we seek to remedy the £19 billion backlog we inherited in 1997 in the modernisation of council housing stock. We have set a target of 2010 for achieving the decent homes standard, which will benefit 2.5 million homes. We have already achieved that standard for 1 million homes. We are committing substantial resources to the decent homes programme, a central priority for local authorities.

Secondly, the Government are committing very large amounts of resources to dealing with the problem of homelessness. In that regard, I was grateful for the supportive comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. Lay a further obligation on local authorities with regard to overcrowding, and you jeopardise the first two very important commitments and targets. I say to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton that it is a matter of resource. We all desire to deal with the issue of overcrowding, but to achieve the end, one has to will the means. This Government have, particularly since the last general election, estimated by common consent our investment in housing across the board. However, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that there are limits. That is certainly the source of our misgivings about acceding to the more ambitious, updated targets with regard to overcrowding.

Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

On that point, would my right hon. Friend not accept that the overwhelming majority of those families are already registered for transfers on local authority RSL waiting lists? We have not materialised new people or new demand. As the law currently stands it means that local authorities, depending on the level of pressure in their area, are not able to—or choose not to—prioritise those families who, out of necessity, might have children or adults sleeping in a kitchen or living room. It is a question of asking, within the current profile of priorities, how we can ensure that conditions that are clearly unacceptable to modern standards and modern eyes are reflected in the priority setting of local authorities. Obviously more resources would be welcome but, within existing priority setting, those households are not getting the priority that they need.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

I take the point made my hon. Friend, but I put it to her that there is still the issue of resource, which cannot be lightly marginalised. It is our perception that to introduce these new standards would lay a requirement on local authorities that would further divert them from existing priorities. However, I am sure that this debate will continue. Let me make some encouraging remarks.

This debate takes place specifically in the context of the health and safety rating system. As has been pointed out, overcrowding may be severe enough to be hazardous in health and safety terms. That is where the health and safety rating system comes in. It will not solve the problem, but it will bring overcrowding into the mainstream of matters that authorities need to

consider when looking at the condition of properties and the hazards that they contain. The housing health and safety rating system will give authorities a tool to help them judge circumstances and say, ''This person's RSL flat is more damaging to their health than another's bed and breakfast''.

We have considered these arguments in this Committee and other contexts and my hon. Friend and I will continue to debate them. Both she and the Committee will be aware that this matter gives the Government some genuine anxiety. None the less, I am prepared to consider whether it is possible to devise an approach to overcrowding that allows some incremental improvement over a period. I undertake to pursue that possibility as soon as I can, in time for it to be considered in Committee. With that, I invite my hon. Friend to ask leave to withdraw her amendment.

Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

I will try to be brief. Hon. Members have contributed their experiences of this problem. I thank them for their encouragement. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton was right to flag up what I did not; that was partly because I have rehearsed these arguments many times. There are real implications, including cost implications, for mental health, family well-being and the educational achievement of families in such conditions. Those need to be seen in the round.

The hon. Member for Deepings—[Hon. Members: ''South Holland and The Deepings.''] The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the hazard rating and the regulations moved us forward in recognising the impact of overcrowding as a hazard. I am not being churlish. The health and safety ratings are a step in the right direction. I appreciate that they can, and potentially will, have a positive impact on how local authorities proceed. The bottom line is this: in terms of overcrowding, the Bill—if enacted—would still leave the 1935 legislation as the foundation and bedrock of local authorities' decision making. That still means that at a time when there are pressures on priorities, few families will be able to get through the eye of that needle and out of an intolerable situation. Many tens of thousands of families, particularly in London and the south-east, will be living in intolerable conditions just below that threshold. If that were discussed with people and presented to them, and if they looked at some of our examples and illustrations, and those which my right hon. Friend the Minister has encountered in his constituency, they would regard that as unacceptable.

It is right to say that the matter receives little media attention. If the popular press and television flagged up examples of homelessness as they did so well in the 1960s, and as they have with other issues, there would be a public outcry. If veal calves were kept in the conditions in which some of our homeless families and people in need of housing are kept, middle Britain would be out there demonstrating. Nevertheless, that is not so. The regulations in the Bill as it stands are an improvement but, owing to the fact that the 1935 legislation is currently the fall-back position, they are not good enough.

Paddington Churches Housing Association, which is a major provider in my constituency, provides a warning to tenants on their rent books—it was the only thing written there—saying, ''If you knowingly overcrowd your property, you are in breach of your tenancy and can be convicted.'' That is ludicrous, yet is almost a consequence of the law. If that law is not changed, landlords could theoretically prosecute tenants, because the overcrowding is their fault, and throw them out of their house. That is illogical nonsense. Of course, that does not happen. However, it is mad for that to stay on the statute book.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his closing remarks; they provided a germ of encouragement. I intend to withdraw the amendment. However, like Arnie the terminator, I'll be back. I tabled an amendment to what became the Homelessness Act 2002; I have subsequently received encouraging remarks from two Ministers. I am grateful, and I know that the difficulties are genuine. However, that was years ago; the situation is out there and it is bad. Of course there are problems of priorities and competing pressures, but the problem does not go away if we deny it. We must research and tackle that problem, and create a framework that allows us to prioritise it. Those families are not going away. They are still there, in desperate need.

Yes, the Bill will not build new houses and supply is critical. However, if there is no framework legislation, we have no facts and figures and the Government do not give priority to the problem, we will not be able to make the case for change, whether that relates to extra supply and new resources—we have some of those but we need more—or to the structure of the housing stock. It is not right that in London it is almost impossible to create the conditions for building properties with more than two bedrooms. That is where part of the problem lies. Creating that new framework would give us the opportunity to make those arguments on RSL policies, on the type of stock that we build and on new resources.

I intend to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. I am grateful for the Minister's encouragement and look forward to returning to the discussion, led by the Government, later in the Bill's passage.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

If the hon. Lady is to return like Arnie the terminator, perhaps she should enter the race to be Mayor of London.

The Minister gave a helpful reply, which should be warmly greeted on both sides of the Committee. No doubt we shall consider those exact words—''the incremental changes''—during the Bill's passage. We look forward to seeing the fruits of the Minister's considerations before the Bill is enacted.

The Minister admits that the definitions are outdated. He gave a clear indication that he wants to see them reviewed, and that is welcome. His only caveat related to resources. We all understand that. There are never any blank cheques from any party or politician—that would be a nonsense. However, when a Minister talks like that, I sometimes wonder whether he has been briefed by a civil servant who has said, ''Minister, if you agree to that, you will have press

publicity and your wonderful work on decent home standards and other investments will be forgotten by the media, who will focus on the other issue. The media will not praise the Government for their great works.'' I say to the Minister that if the Government have a good story to tell, they will be able to tell it. If a Minister makes progress towards decent home standards, the Government will be able to flag that up.

Surely it is in the interests of the Minister, his constituents and the Government that the measure should go forward and that there should be media reporting. The Minister's constituents need the media to be given the information so that those campaigns can happen. When the decent home standard is reached, the housing issue does not go away. One cannot say, ''We have met the decent home standard, and there is no longer a problem with housing.'' There will still be a housing problem, as the Minister knows.

I am not sure that the Minister has accepted the argument, but he has given some positive signals. If he makes the incremental changes, he will do his constituents and the issue a power of good. He should not fear the odd Sunday Times scoop that claims that overcrowding is worse than ever expected. The Government will then be able to take credit and ensure that, should they ever lose power, housing and overcrowding will remain on the agenda and bubble up to the surface, so that they are tackled properly not only in the immediate future, but in decades to come.

Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 3, in

clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out 'and' and insert—

'(aa) the new emergency measures contained in Chapter 2A (emergency remedial action and emergency prohibition orders), and'.

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments Nos. 4 to 7.

Government amendment No. 10.

Amendment No. 221, in

clause 8, page 6, line 39, at end add—

'(d) their function under this Part in responding to emergency or urgent situations.'.

Government amendments Nos. 11 to 15.

Government amendment No. 20.

Government new clause 4—Emergency remedial action.

Government new clause 5—Notice of emergency remedial action.

Government new clause 6—Recovery of expenses of taking emergency remedial action.

Government new clause 7—Emergency prohibition orders.

Government new clause 8—Contents of emergency prohibition orders.

Government new clause 9—Appeals relating to emergency measures.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

As I have said, clause 1 provides for the introduction of a new system for assessing housing conditions and provides for that system to be used in the enforcement of housing standards. The new system, which is to be known as the housing health and safety rating system, replaces the fitness standard in section 604 of the Housing Act 1985. That section is repealed by the Bill.

This is an important clause. As I said in my introductory remarks, we believe that the new system introduced by clause 1 will bring about a major improvement in the methodology of assessing conditions in residential premises.

Subsection (2) provides for the new system to operate

''by reference to the existence of category 1 or category 2 hazards on residential premises''.

Those are the categories into which hazards will be placed by the local housing authority as a result of its inspection and assessment. That assessment will be based on the risk to the actual or potential occupier of the premises who is most vulnerable to the hazard.

Subsection (3) sets out the courses of action available to a local authority for dealing with a hazard. There are five options: to serve an improvement notice, requiring work to be carried out to the property; to make a prohibition order preventing the property, or part of it, from being used; to serve a hazard awareness notice, simply notifying that a hazard exists but not requiring any action; to make a demolition order; and to declare a clearance area. Subsections (4) to (8) define or interpret some of the terms used in part 1. The purpose of those provisions is to ensure that part 1 applies to all residential premises.

I now turn to the Government amendments in the group. We have taken note of the recommendation of the Select Committee that the Bill should enable local authorities to take emergency action to deal with category 1 hazards that present an imminent risk of serious harm to the occupiers of residential premises. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 add emergency measures—emergency remedial action and emergency prohibition orders—to the options in subsection (3), to which I have just referred. Amendment No. 5 provides that these emergency measures are courses of action that may be available to a local authority in relation to a category 1 hazard. Amendment No. 6 is a drafting amendment. Amendment No. 7 provides that, where an authority takes remedial action to deal with an emergency situation followed by an improvement notice in order to secure the complete removal of the hazard in somewhat slower time, those two steps are to be regarded as a single course of action. The same principle will apply in the case of an emergency prohibition order followed by what may informally be described as an ordinary prohibition order. The purpose of these provisions is to enable the authority to take the two steps simultaneously.

Amendment No. 10 enables the appropriate national authority to give guidance under clause 8 to

local authorities about the use of these emergency measures. Amendments Nos. 11 to 15 provide that the powers of local authorities to recover certain expenses incurred in taking enforcement action under part 1 extend to any such expenses incurred in taking emergency remedial action or making an emergency prohibition order.

I turn to the new clauses. It may help the Committee if I describe their purpose and effect in logical sequence rather than in numerical order. New clause 4 enables a local authority, if it is satisfied that a category 1 hazard exists on residential premises that are not the subject of an interim or final management order in force under part 4, and if it is further satisfied that the hazard involves an imminent risk of serious harm to the health or safety of any of the occupants of those or any other residential properties, to enter the premises at any time to take emergency remedial action. New clause 7 enables a local authority, subject to the same conditions, to make an emergency prohibition order to prohibit the use of all or part of the residential premises.

New clauses 5 and 8 set out the mandatory contents of an emergency remedial action notice and an emergency prohibition order. Each must specify, in relation to each hazard, details of the nature of the hazard, the deficiency that gives rise to the hazard and the residential premises in which it exists. Emergency remedial action notices must specify the action taken—or to be taken—and the date on which the action was, or is to be, started. Emergency prohibition orders must specify the premises in relation to which prohibitions are imposed and any remedial action that the authority consider would, if taken, result in its revoking the order. Remedial action notices and emergency prohibition orders must contain information about the right of appeal against the action, and the period within which an appeal may be made. Those emergency provisions enable a local authority to take immediate action and provide that, if an emergency remedial action or emergency prohibition order is appealed against under new clause 9, the appeal does not delay or affect the taking of the action by the local authority, or the prohibition.

Finally on the new clauses, new clause 6 applies certain provisions of schedule 3, which sets out circumstances in which authorities may recover expenses, to the recovery of expenses in taking emergency remedial action and making emergency prohibition orders.

Ms Vera Baird (Redcar, Labour)

I warmly welcome the introduction of emergency measures. It is clear that the Government have, once again, been responsive to the results of consultation. I was anxious to know how it is envisaged that such measures will be triggered quickly enough to have effect. All I can see in the Bill is that, in order to trigger them, there needs to be a local authority inspection. The only way of obtaining that is through the annual review or through an official complaint through a justice of the peace or a parish council—neither of which is particularly speedy.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

We will have the opportunity to discuss complaints in due course. I understand my hon. and learned Friend's misgiving about the character of official complaints and their sources—I asked one or two questions about that. The continued presence of the reference to JPs and to parish and community councils is in response to Select Committee recommendations. We were not necessarily minded to continue that format.

Nevertheless, let me reassure my hon. and learned Friend by pointing out that complaints are not restricted to official complainants. Members of Parliament can register a complaint. However, in practice, they will be sent to a local authority by the individuals concerned. All experience suggests that local authorities and environmental health officers are, generally speaking, very responsive to such complaints. In my experience as a Member of Parliament, I have never had a complaint about a failure to respond to a complaint. However, I have heard complaints that perhaps the environmental health officer was not sufficiently sympathetic.

The thrust of my remarks is that the complaint may be extended from any source. We would certainly expect there to be an immediate response, particularly to a complaint about a life-threatening situation. As my hon. and learned Friend will know from her legal background, we cannot write into legislation a guarantee that the local authority will respond, but we will expect it to do so none the less. Once a complaint is registered, we will expect the environmental health officer to enter the premises—we have made provision for that—and to examine the object of the complaint.

The emergency provisions allow for immediate action to be undertaken by the local authority in certain circumstances, such as if there were no other obvious responsible person in a position to carry out the necessary action. An example would be the case of the discovery of exposed live wires in a building, which would obviously be very dangerous. I suppose that the first recourse would be to check out the landlord of the premises, but if there were a problem with doing so, the local authority would move in and deal with the business itself.

Ms Vera Baird (Redcar, Labour)

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that explanation, and for the prompt from the Opposition Benches about the categories of official complainant being widened—at least, they may be widened; that is the intention of a later amendment, No. 220. I do not know what his response will be to that.

I would be interested if my right hon. Friend clarified the point of having an official complaint route is if it is envisaged that an ordinary complaint will trigger the procedures that we are talking about anyway. I note that clause 4 requires an inspector to inspect if there is an official complaint, so there is that compulsion on the inspector for those who go through the official channels. However, if someone has to act quickly, there is no other way of compelling the local authority to act quickly, is there? I am puzzled about how the process is supposed to work. An official complaint is likely to be slower, but it involves some

compulsion; a complaint from an ordinary complainant—not a JP and so on—will not have any compulsion behind it. We know that sometimes problems result from ordinary people simply making their presence felt and making their impact on bureaucracy and officialdom. I have some residual concerns, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend can help me further.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

When my hon. and learned Friend asked why on earth we needed such a reference to the official complaint, my inclination was to say, ''It beats me.'' It is one of those cases where we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. The Select Committee wanted to retain that source of complaints, and we acceded to its desires.

It is not magistrates, JPs, or parish and community councils—we in London know nothing of the latter—that are the sole or most forceful source of complaint. The complaint can come from any citizen and any representative person. We expect the local authority to be responsive, especially if the complaint is described in terms that make it appear to be urgent. My hon. and learned Friend has great professional expertise in the law on such matters: if she has an idea about how we could add to the compulsion in the process, I should be genuinely interested to hear about it. Having said that, I have asked questions about this and I find that, on the whole, the experience is that a failure to respond is not a major issue. I shall have to leave her with that assurance.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

It seems to me that we need to press the Minister a little more on this matter. He has made a case for how such a complaint might be triggered, but having already told us that that would be a matter of great urgency—perhaps a life-threatening emergency—he said that it was not for him to say how local authorities will respond; some may take it casually and others will take it more seriously. It is a bit weak to tell the Committee that we cannot put any stipulation in law regarding the way in which people respond to a life-threatening emergency. Surely, we want some assurance that the complaint having been triggered—we have been diligent about how that might happen—the obligation to respond will be dealt with equally seriously.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

As I understand it, we are currently discussing the speed of the response. We should, however, be in no doubt that in the clause we are laying an obligation on local authorities to consider the condition of the housing stock throughout their locality. Under the terms that we are currently legislating for, they have an obligation to ensure that serious, sometimes critical, defects should not be present in their housing stock. If there is a complaint about such defects, the local authorities are under an obligation to respond and to take remedial action. There is no doubt that the local authority is obliged to respond. The issue that we have been trying to tease out is how—if at all—we can ensure that they respond speedily. One can only hope that if a local authority were notified that live electrical wires were exposed in a residential property and were thus a potential threat to

the occupants, they would recognise the urgency and respond appropriately. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

It does not really satisfy me. We are clear that, under these requirements, local authorities are going to review their housing stock and that if that process has been carried out thoroughly, they are likely to have a fair view of likely risks and problems. However, perhaps the stock has been reviewed and some change in circumstances and conditions takes place about which they were not aware during that review process. If they are made aware of an urgent situation and they need to respond, surely there should at least be some performance indicator for the time scale involved and the speed of that response? We have such an indication for every other public service that deals with emergencies. Are we saying that we will not have one at all in this case? Are we going to leave it purely to chance? The Minister used the word ''hope.'' Shall we leave it to our hopes and good wishes, or are we going to inject some real energy and urgency into the process?

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

I do not want to appear not to take seriously the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but it is not immediately apparent how one could prescribe a timetable for a response to the sort of complaint that we are discussing. I said at the beginning that I approach the Bill in an open-minded spirit and a desire to engage. If the hon. Gentleman can in due course—perhaps on Report, if not now—propose a timetable by which responses can be defined and measured, I am sure that we would look at that with considerable interest.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

The problem has been caused because the trigger mechanisms for an investigation to deal with an immediate problem or emergency are still linked to the provisions of the Bill, particularly under clause 4, relating to general inspections. Perhaps the Minister needs another new clause so that the trigger mechanism is outside that set down under clause 4. The clause is fine in itself, although we shall come to amendment No. 220 later. It sets out the trigger mechanisms for the usual inspections in the normal way, but perhaps they would not work with the new clause on emergencies.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

I will have a look at the matter and if we need to add anything to the Bill, we shall consider doing so. With genuine respect to the hon. Gentleman, I would need to hear more persuasive grounds for taking such action than I have heard so far. If he wants to consider the matter further and table an amendment, we shall certainly consider it. There is ample time in which to discuss such matters in the House, and the Government are always anxious to improve their proposed legislation.

I stress to the Committee that the emergency measures will be available to authorities only when they are satisfied that there is an imminent risk of serious harm to the occupiers of residential premises. They are not intended to be used lightly, and the Select Committee did not suggest that they should be so used. They are intended to be used to tackle hazards at

the upper end of category 1—that is, those hazards that need to be tackled immediately. Examples of that might be to prohibit the use of a staircase that is so rotten that someone might fall through it at any moment or to support a wall that is in imminent danger of collapse.

As I have explained, there will be rights of appeal against the use of the powers, but the appeal will not impede or delay the necessary action. If the appeal were upheld, possible outcomes might be to require a landlord to return the premises to their original state on the grounds that the action was unnecessary or to compensate him. We have had a lengthy and useful exchange of views and I hope that my amendment will be accepted.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I have tabled amendment No. 221, although the Government's amendments go in the right direction and we welcome the fact that they listened to the advice of the Select Committee. However, some questions need to be asked. The matter is probably one that we may need to come back to in detail on Report because we are trying to get our heads around exactly how the provision will work. Part of the problem is what we consider to be an emergency. People interpret that as meaning that something needs to be done quickly. That is why I am not sure that in trying to use the existing framework, which has been well developed and has wide support, the Government have quite got it right.

I shall cite some examples. First, under new clause 4(1)(a), the Government have linked matters that would count as requiring emergency remedial action to a category 1 hazard. There could be an instance when a hazard did not fit into category 1, but still required emergency action—I know that that is unlikely, but it is possible. If category 1 hazards had been properly defined, we would expect them to capture all issues that require emergency remedial action. To be honest, I cannot think of something that would not be caught by a category 1 hazard, but what if something really is a problem and, although it is not calculated to fit into a category 1 hazard, it really requires emergency remedial action? Have the Government thought about that?

Another issue is that the structure of the rating system as I understand it has linked the need for emergency remedial action to serious harm to occupiers. New clause 4(1)(b) mentions

''serious harm to the health or safety of any of the occupiers of those or any other residential premises''.

The problem is that there might be cases in which there could be serious harm not to the occupier but to property. The Minister said when introducing the system that what was new about it was that it was person-centred. However, one could imagine serious harm requiring emergency remedial action being caused to the property. For example, the top two storeys of an HMO might be vacant, so no harm would befall occupiers; but what if that building was suffering serious immediate harm and immediate action was needed—in relation to the roof, for example? If that action was not taken immediately or very quickly, valuable housing could be lost.

We have to be quite clear about how we define serious harm and about whether the provisions refer to the occupier alone, or to the property as well. Again, that would go against the framework of the rating system as it is currently set out, but perhaps that is required for emergencies. Amendment No. 221 mentions

''responding to emergency or urgent situations.''

That begins to tease out the fact that although it is emergencies that are normally thought of as things that need to be acted on immediately, perhaps we should include matters that are urgent and require quick responses, but are not emergencies.

That brings me to my final concern, which is about new clause 9 on ''Appeals relating to emergency measures.'' Subsection (3) states that an appeal

''must be made within the period of 28 days''.

It may take a few days for the housing authority to register an emergency because of problems that we have discussed in relation to how the complaint is triggered. If there are 28 days for the landlord to appeal, and the appeal is then processed, we are looking at several weeks—possibly even a month or two—before the emergency is dealt with. The Minister needs to think about the time scale, although I know that there is a balance and one has to give some rights of appeal.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is making a good and persuasive argument, but it would be helped by a consideration of the action that might be necessary to alleviate the immediate risk to health. The Minister suggested the example of a staircase that was in danger of collapsing, or a wall that might fall. It is likely that an appropriate course of action for the agency would be to demolish that wall, or at least to take serious structural action in respect of it, or to block off the staircase. Those are the kind of actions that would protect health, and would certainly have to be done quickly if that risk to health and well-being was to be averted.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because he made my point with a good example. The Government in responding to the Select Committee—quite rightly; we are grateful that they have done so—needed to think a little more carefully about how the requirement to address an emergency is put into legislation.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I shall try to be brief. He raised the issue of appeals and the 28 days. I remind him that action is taken and the appeal takes place simultaneously. The force of the new provisions is precisely to ensure that the emergency remedial action takes place while the appeal process is going on. There is a debate about serious harm, but I contend that there is a difference between an imminent danger of a wall collapsing on the occupant of premises and a building collapsing to the detriment of local housing.

Finally, I accept that there is sometimes a problem—to which we will return—with the borderlines between category 1 and category 2 hazards. However, I put it to the hon. Gentleman

that a category 2 hazard such as mould is evidently not as risky in terms of contributing to serious injury as are the collapsing walls, exposed live wires and faulty staircases that we have talked about. To that extent, there is a clear common-sense distinction with regard

to what justifies emergency action under the terms of the Bill.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.