Clause 1 - New system for assessing housing conditions and enforcing housing standards
Housing Bill
2:30 pm
Mr Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)
Several issues have not been covered under the two groups of amendments, and I would like to examine them now.
I welcome the new rating system. A lot of research and consultation has gone into it, and most outside experts and local authorities say that we are moving towards getting it right. There are some details from which we shall try to iron out the final wrinkles—we will come to them in the next and other clauses—but it is worth putting it on the record that the system is an improvement. However, there may be an argument to be made in relation to a later set of amendments on how we should introduce the version 2 guidance, because that version has not yet been piloted and tested. Overall, the experience of piloting version 1 has led to some improvements—as, of course, has the Select Committee's report.
I have a pretty fundamental question about the process for the Minister. There is a debate about adopting a numerical system that relies on calculations to produce a number, and about the extent to which that will allow environmental health officers to exercise discretion and judgment. The old system was very much judgment-based, although there were lots of guidelines and advice. In the early stages of developing the new system, the Government tried to operate a purely numerical system, but the experience of the version 1 pilot caused them to change to a system that aims to combine numerical assessments and judgments. Perhaps the Minister can say a little bit more about that on the record.
Although there are references to it in the guidance—which is great reading for people who are having problems getting to sleep at night—it would be good if the Minister clearly told those environmental health officers who are worried by the new numerical system that their judgment will decide whether something is a category 1 or a category 2 hazard. That is important, not only to assuage their concerns, but because the Minister knows that if it were just a numerical value that determined how the rating system worked, there would be a danger that legal challenges would focus on the details of the calculation.
Although the version 2 guidance notes are admirably clear, the idea that the calculation is incontestable would not stand up in court. There is a great deal of judgment within the calculations, so there would be problems pretending that it is totally scientific and numerically led. Of course, the Government have moved from a single figure to a banding system, about which we will say more during the debate on the next clause. However, even if something falls into one of the bands, it is still ultimately the judgment—not the score—that puts it there. That point must be clarified. It is important that the Minister puts that on the record, because it will be fundamental to how the system is introduced and administered.
Although we now have the version 2 guidance, I should like the Minister to make it clear that the Government are taking a flexible approach to operation. In an earlier response to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), the Minister said that it was important to show that there is certainty in the framework. I agree. However, we want flexibility within certainty. In other words, if the version 2 guidance tell us that the system is not up to snuff, and the Government have the powers under the Bill that I think they do, we should ensure that the system can be tweaked in the light of the experience of the implementation of version 2.
There are other points to be made about the system, but I shall make them in relation to other clauses. I shall focus on the principal issues arising from the shift from the old fitness standards to the new rating system. If the Minister can reassure the Committee that it is not just a calculations-based system, we should, in principle, let the clause stand part of the Bill.