Clause 1 - New system for assessing housing conditions and enforcing housing standards
Housing Bill
3:00 pm
Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)
I feel that I need to respond to that, as it appears that my own Department's regulatory impact assessment is quoted in those figures.
We are not in the business of reducing the necessary investment that we expect landlords to make with regard to the condition of their properties; that goes without saying. Nevertheless—I make this point as a possible explanation for the figures, assuming that they are accurate—we have always said that the new system provides a more targeted and selective approach to dealing with hazards in building. It is important to remember that one weakness of the old fitness test standard was the fact that it required the identification of one or other of the nine defects and prescribed a series of responses but—this was the crucial difference between the old system and the new—it did not relate the hazard to the occupant of the premises. We will say a lot more about that. To that extent, the new system has a less broad-brush approach to dealing with hazard. It is more precise. It identifies the impact of a hazard on the occupant, and it might therefore produce fewer costs for landlords.
We believe that the report refers to the cost of works carried out, not to local authority costs. We think that it states what I have maintained, which is that dealing with hazards can be reasonably inexpensive. As I have said, it is our contention that the new system provides more discussion to tailor work. I am grateful for that further item of inspiration, which largely points up what I was able to work out myself.
The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue, and it is incumbent on me to offer a more detailed response. I undertake to do so in due course, if the Committee will be patient.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.