Clause 2 - Meaning of ''category 1 hazard'' and
Housing Bill
3:00 pm
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 175, in
clause 2, page 3, line 17, after second 'the', insert 'immediate'.
[R] Relevant registered interest declared.
Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 174, in
clause 2, page 3, line 19, at end insert—
'(1A) In calculating the seriousness of hazards, the individual level of disability shall be taken into account.'.
No. 176, in
clause 2, page 3, line 24, leave out 'the case may be' and insert
'clearly defined by the appropriate national authority'.
No. 216, in
clause 2, page 3, line 27, at end insert—
'(3A) Before laying any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall have laid before Parliament a report setting out the results of a pilot testing the latest version of the prescribed method for calculating category 1 and category 2 hazards.'.
No. 177, in
clause 2, page 3, line 31, after 'mental', insert ', physical and environmental'.
No. 184, in
clause 5, page 5, line 8, after second 'a', insert 'clearly defined'.
No. 185, in
clause 6, page 5, line 41, after '5', insert
'where the local housing authority deems a clearly defined category 1 hazard exists'.
No. 186, in
clause 7, page 6, line 17, after 'a', insert 'clearly defined'.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
We have come to clause 2 with appropriate alacrity. It happily brings us to a discussion that stems directly from the previous one. That seems logical, but it is important to rehearse the Minister's earlier point. He said that the important change under part 1 of the Bill was to make it person-centred. I prefer the description ''man-centred'', but perhaps ''person'' is the politically correct term if not the generic one. The person-centred approach marries considerations about the property with considerations about the people who occupy it. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the system should be objective and transparent. He said that those were the two great changes. On one hand, the change is to be person-centred, while on the other it is to be transparent and objective. That is a neat turn of phrase. It well summarises the intentions of the Government and that is made clear in the detailed documents that we have all studied.
The group of amendments does two things. It probes the Minister to be more specific, in the interests of transparency and objectivity, about the balance between category 1 and category 2 hazards. He has been more specific to some extent by describing the process in his useful remarks at the end of the first clause stand part debate. However, there is a need for greater clarity about the difference between a category 1 hazard and a category 2 hazard, because of the repercussions of each. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have a chance to clarify matters. Several of the amendments are designed to elicit greater clarification.
Amendment No. 175, in particular, gives us the opportunity to study in some detail the people-centred aspects of a hazard and risk assessment. I understand precisely why the Government have chosen an
approach whose essence is to base the people-centred assessment on age but, as I told the Minister before our sitting, I have certain worries about it. Such an approach has the advantage of simplicity, but there is more to it than that. It is rooted in good evidence that typically, as people grow older, they become subject to more risks. We need not study rocket science to work out that, as people become old, they often become less able. Sometimes they become less capable of dealing with various risks that are associated with housing.
Such an approach is laudable but unsatisfactory. My amendment suggests that we move from an analysis based solely on age to an analysis based on ability or disability, so that the system can be implemented with greater confidence. We can define ability and disability without a significant overlap with age. People often become less able as they become older, but that is not exclusively the case. We can define matters in a way that allows the analysis of hazard and the enforcement measures to be completed in a more targeted and effective way.
The Minister described the importance of targeting when he was defending the financial aspects of the information that has been provided to members of the Committee about as persuasively as Max Bygraves would have done in Committee. His description of the numerical analysis was a little like the Max Bygraves rendition of ''Deck of Cards'', in which the four stood for the evangelists and the three for the Trinity. I could go on, but I do not want to become too biblical. In the interests of clarity and targeting, it is important that we reach the people who are most at risk. Disabled people may not be old; old people may not be less able. The marriage between people's behaviour and habit and their culture that prevails when they are exposed to risk requires a more sensitive, targeted approach.
For example, we know that mentally disabled people are critical of the quality and appropriateness of their housing. Members of the Committee will be familiar with the parliamentary briefing on wheelchair users that we received from the John Grooms housing association. It suggested that about 40 per cent. of wheelchair users believed that the place in which they lived was inappropriate for them because it was not well adapted to their needs. We know that other disabled people are at particular risk from a range of hazards that are described in the new document. The guidance that has been provided to implement the new standards deals specifically with mental health and psychological implications of various conditions that might prevail in housing. In many ways, the guidance seems to apply outside the narrow boundary of how old someone is. Surely we can be more intelligent, more targeted and more specific in how we deal with the analysis of the types of people who are most likely to be at risk from the hazards that we define as a result of the new information.
Mr Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)
The current system examines a particular risk and assesses it with regard to the most vulnerable person who may come across such a risk, such as a stair problem for an elderly person or damp conditions for a young baby. Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that, in all categories of analysis, the most vulnerable person should be someone with a disability?
If so, what level of disability does he mean? However, given his use of the word ''targeted'', is he saying that, when the environment health officer examines the property occupied by a person with a disability, there should be a different way to assess the property for that occupant?
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
I mean the second of the two examples to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is important to focus on ability or disability. I am not using the word ''disability'' in the sense that he is assuming that I am. I am not speaking only of disabled people. I am talking about people whose ability or disability in relation to a hazard may impact on their risk. Let us consider an elderly person living in a very well adapted home—perhaps relatively modern accommodation or a bungalow without stairs with all the necessary elements put in place to ensure that the person's life is as safe and convenient as possible. That person is certainly at less risk than a young person in a very old property that, based on the criteria before us today, does not satisfy reasonable modern safety standards. That situation is borne out by the information available to the Committee as well as other information that is available to the whole House. Yet because of the way in which the Government have taken age profile as the key criterion in the people-centred aspect of their approach, that would not necessarily count for a great deal.
I want the Government to come up with a way of measuring ability or disability that allows us to target the guidance at different groups in the population that may be vulnerable. It is true that elderly people are often vulnerable, but many other groups are vulnerable too. It is important that we take account of that when implementing the new methodology. I would make the approach more effective to allow us to target better and make it easier for local authorities to enforce the new standards.
I raised that matter when we were briefed on the subject and spoke to one of the academics involved in drawing up the new guidance. The essence of the response that I received, on which the Minister may want to elucidate, was that because of the complexity of what I have described, it was necessary to pick something to define the people at greatest risk, for the purposes of simplicity and to get something on the record—to make a start, as it were. Age was the thing to choose because, as I said, there is a correlation between age and risk. My worry about that approach is that it will miss out important sections of the population and important people in different communities, so it may be too crude an instrument.
Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton North, Labour)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are other ways of dealing with the other disabilities, such as by providing aids, adapting properties and allocating property properly to ensure that people get the right type for them to use? Therefore it is right to confine the hazard assessment to the broad categories, based on age and the most general elements of hazard.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
Yes, indeed, there are other ways of dealing with the problem. I commend to the hon. Lady the excellent document produced by McCarthy & Stone plc, ''A Better Life: Private Sheltered Housing
and Independent Living for Older People''. She may have already read it. It makes it clear that there are many other ways of dealing with the issue. Sheltered housing is an effective way of providing appropriate accommodation that, at its best, minimises hazard and reduces risk. That is because it deals with the very issues identified in the provisions, such as fire risks, electrical problems, inappropriate staircases, damp, cold and all the other things that we know are of particular concern to older people because, as I said, of their propensity to illness or to be less able.
Of course, there are other ways of dealing with the issue, but at the very heart of what we are being asked to consider and approve in Committee is the people-centred approach that the Minister identified, which the Government chose to found on a measurement that is relatively simple—one might say happily simple, or one might say sadly crude. They used the measure of age rather than a proper assessment of ability and disability that would draw in people with learning difficulties, those in other circumstances and those with a severe or chronic illness that had a real impact on their ability or disability, and therefore on their susceptibility to hazard and risks. We really need to make a proper assessment.
As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said when he asked about my argument, we are not talking about a simple suggestion that we count disabled people only, but a suggestion that we come to a better judgment on measuring ability or disability for the purposes of making the system work. That is at the heart of the group of amendments. They are designed to help, in that they in no way attempt to frustrate the Bill's intentions; indeed, they would make the measures more appropriate and effective. Nor are they designed to do anything other than what the Minister recommended, which is to enhance the objectivity and transparency of the system that the Government implement. They are not unhelpful, but vital amendments.
If we are to set off down the road of the cultural change that I described earlier, it would be as well to do so properly at the outset. If we go down the road of measuring people's ability principally on the basis of age, the danger is that we shall never move beyond that. We were told that to do so was a good and appropriate start, and that it had the advantage of clarity, but there is a real risk that we shall not re-examine the issue with a view to improving how we measure ability. Given that local government officers will have a cultural change, that we shall have all sorts of difficulties, and that there are issues to do with cost, training and implementation, we must get it right. I have principally spoken about amendment No. 175, and I believe that it, in particular, will enable us to do that.
Other amendments in the group are largely designed to tease out from the Minister a little more detail about the different types of hazard and their implications. I hope that he will do that.
Mr Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)
Thank you, Mr. Pike. I will speak to amendment No. 216. It would prevent any regulations under proposed section (3A) being laid before Parliament until we were sure that version 2 had been properly piloted and the problems had been ironed out.
The Government have undertaken a lot of consultation and analysis in order to get us to this point. However, unfortunately, version 1 of the system was found by their own consultants and various practitioners in the field to have a number of problems. Therefore, the Government have come up with version 2; they published their unfinalised draft version of the guidance last month. That shows that we are at a relatively early stage in getting to grips with version 2. We have not tried it out in the field. We have not discovered whether some of the many practical problems that were experienced with version 1 have been solved. Although lessons have been learned from what happened to version 1 and there have been some improvements, there are still many questions to ask.
The Minister might throw back the following statement: ''We have been waiting for this for a long time, so let's get a move on.'' However, I am not asking for a long delay. By the time that the Bill passes through both Houses, receives Royal Assent and some of the regulations are in a form to be laid before the House, we could be well under way with the pilots and beginning to assess the results. In practice, the delay that I am asking for may last a few months; I am not asking for a wait of four years. If this House is to agree to the new system, it is important that it be reassured that the system can work. If version 1 had worked, I would not be as concerned. However, version 1 did not work. Therefore, we need to ensure that version 2 is practical. I am not the only person who has concerns about version 2; so do people from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and elsewhere. They and I are in favour of the basic thrust of the system. We are not trying to undermine it.
During the clause 1 stand part debate, the Committee discussed a point that is particularly relevant to some of the amendments and to clause 2(1): the issue between numerical score and judgment. Even with some of the amendments that have been proposed, we are still pushed towards taking the numerical route in clause 2.
Although the Minister's answer to the last debate was helpful, what he said—that the ultimate judgment is at the discretion and as a result of the professional expertise of the environmental officer—is not in the Bill. What will appear in due course when we consider the regulations are calculations and numerical scores. There is concern about that key part of the Government system that has not been tried. It is important that the House gets a chance to look at a report on whether it works before the regulations are implemented. That would be a good safety measure to include in the Bill.
I shall briefly talk to some of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. He makes a good point about disability. It is understandable that the groups representing people with disabilities are concerned about whether the new system can be used to deal with some of the problems experienced by disabled people. Although I understand that, I agree with the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble): there might be better ways to get a better outcome for people with disabilities than to bolt on to the system something that has not been designed for it. That is why I asked the hon. Gentleman a question on that—although I suspect that I did not make myself clear enough. Even under his version of the system, which he says will work, one chooses the most vulnerable person for the particular hazard. He wants that to be judged on the degree of ability or disability. However, the Minister is talking about the ages of young and elderly people.
The problem with going down the disabled route, however that is defined, is that there will not be all the necessary population data. We would be talking about a much smaller sample of the population than is the case with age, for which there are many people with disabilities in different parts of the spectrum. The system would have difficulty producing the consistent, transparent results that we want. To use disability for that purpose would be to destroy the system's underlying rationale and logic.
I am speaking off the top of my head—I have not thought about this properly—but I wonder whether it would be possible to modify the system for occupancy. The system would generally work as it is described in the guidance, with the most vulnerable person, whether they were elderly or young, as the potential occupant. Perhaps a different set of measurements, likelihoods and so on could be applied to the enforcement officer's consideration of a property that is occupied by someone with a disability.
I say that cautiously—I am not necessarily proposing it—because there are potential dangers. Landlords might discriminate against disabled people, so one must be careful. However, if one thinks about that idea, one sees the difficulty of using the system for purposes for which it was not designed. That brings me back to what the hon. Member for Northampton, North said. Perhaps we should tackle such problems differently. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has done the Committee a service in raising ideas that help us think round the best way to approach the subject.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)
I speak in support of the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings and of some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton.
On hazard and risk, as I understand it, the environmental health officer will survey a property using 29 categories, come to a judgment and measure that against the average type of dwelling in the area. The benchmark, about which the Minister has spoken, seems to be that a property fit for people who are old or very young—those categories at both ends of the
spectrum—would be safe for all. At that point, there would be a scoring mechanism and a local authority might look at a property and determine whether to take action.
To return to what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said, is it likely that if there were two fit, 20-something men in a chilly, cold property that was inappropriate for a baby, the local authority would still take action on improving it, irrespective of the fact that they can live in it? The legislation seems to leave much to the discretion of local authorities. Our discussion under clause 1 about possible savings also included talk about the discretion to decide whether to implement provisions. Would the local authority say, ''Yes, this is a very draughty, nasty flat. It would not be appropriate for a baby, but there is no particular problem for the people living in it, so we will not pursue this issue''? That is what I am trying to tease from the Minister.
Discretion will be applied at some point. Once there is a scoring system using the benchmark of the elderly, the young child or the baby, it is incumbent on the local authority to determine what action follows. Surely the real tenants rather than who the tenants could be would inform its action? Theoretically, the system should be the same for an actual or a potential tenant. In reality, however, will a local authority invest an awful lot of time trying to enforce an order against a landlord if it does not believe there to be any great risk to healthy 20-something-year-old men in a property? Surely its priority would be those who are most vulnerable?
Let us consider, say, three properties. Fit people live in property No. 1, which is draughty and cold, and there are difficulties in meeting the criteria. Fit people live in property No. 2. A very elderly person who is asthmatic and has a family with young children happens to live in property No. 3, and, if the system were working, that is where one would expect the focus to be.
I am trying to tease from the Minister how the system would operate, and at what point discretion would be used. Would there be discretion or not? It comes down to this: a landlord with a property that may be a little draughty, who does not want to spend a lot of money investing in it by installing central heating, may be tempted to say, ''I won't have a family in here with young kids, or someone very elderly, because someone may report that the property is inappropriate, the environmental health officer will come along, and I'll have to invest a lot of money in it. I'll look for someone to put in it who'll be less trouble.''
There is that risk and concern, which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton put his finger on, so we need to tease a little more from the Minister about discretion and the scoring system. How will things work in practice when the local authority sees tenants who may be fit and perfectly capable, at least for a time, of living in a property that according to the scoring method is substandard, and has to decide whether to take enforcement action?
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
My hon. Friend has put the case very succinctly—beyond my wildest ambitions. His point is about varying levels of vulnerability. It is true that old people and young children may be typically vulnerable, as he suggested. There are, however, many other vulnerable groups in the community, and we need an absolute assurance that they will be targeted appropriately to ensure that they are not at significant risk because the system is too crude to catch them. That is precisely what my hon. Friend suggested so cogently. If I am not mistaken, that is the essence of the debate and of our amendments on ability and disability. Perhaps we should have said ''vulnerability'' rather than ''disability.''
Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)
My hon. Friend is right; vulnerability is very important. I have made my point, and I hope that the Minister gets the drift of it.
Mr Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)
I agree with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings that the hon. Member for Poole made his point extremely well. He is showing us where the balance is to be struck. If the inspector takes the actual occupant into account, there is a possibility that the landlord might never think of letting to anyone who did not fall into the category of a young, fit person. From another point of view, however, the landlord might say, ''If you are going to make me spend money to make this property fit for the most vulnerable person, even though I intend to let to young, fit, able men, I will not bother to rent out properties.'' We may see a reduction in the private rental sector. I hope that the Minister can give assurances that such decisions are fundamentally at the discretion of the environmental health officer, who can take into account the actual occupant, not just the potential occupant.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Local authorities do not have vast numbers of environmental health officers. In some local authorities there are many substandard properties, which will have to be prioritised, and the authority will inevitably prioritise for those who are most vulnerable. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the points raised.
Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)
Before I deal with the details raised by the hon. Gentlemen, let me begin by reminding the Committee of the provisions of clause 2. It provides for the components of the new system to be prescribed in regulations. Those are: first,
''the method for calculating the seriousness of hazards'';
secondly, the descriptions of hazards; thirdly, the bands into which hazards may fall depending on their seriousness; and fourthly, the numerical scores which determine the bands into which the hazards fall.
Clause 2(1) defines ''hazard'' for the purposes of part 1 as:
''any risk of harm to the health or safety of an actual or potential occupier of a dwelling or HMO which arises from a deficiency in the dwelling or HMO or in any building or land in the vicinity''.
Examples of such deficiencies are construction faults, dangerous features such as broken banisters, inadequate heating or insulation, and a lack of repair
or maintenance. Clause 2(1) also defines category 1 and 2 hazards. Category 1 hazards are those that are sufficiently serious to trigger the general duty on the local authority, as described in clause 5, to
''take the appropriate enforcement action''.
Category 2 hazards—all other hazards—are those that trigger the powers set out in clause 7, under which a local authority will have a discretionary power to take enforcement action.
The assessment of a hazard has two elements. The first is the likelihood of an occurrence resulting in harm. The second is the potential outcome of that occurrence. By virtue of clause 2(3), the regulations prescribing the method will
''take into account both the likelihood of the harm occurring and the severity of the harm if it were to occur.''
Whether a hazard is in category 1 or 2, and whether, within those categories, it falls into band A, B, C, D or E, is a matter of the judgment of the inspector based on the evidence.
I shall give an example of a fall hazard. A child may fall through a low, wide window that is defective because it has no safety catch. The likelihood of falling out is no different whether the window is on the ground or the top floor of a block of flats, but of course the likely outcome would be different. The outcome will also vary depending on the surface the child might fall on to.
Another example is of a fire hazard. The group most vulnerable to fire is people over the age of 60, but the young are also at risk. Impairment to mobility clearly increases vulnerability in the event of a fire. The most common cause of death from a fire is smoke inhalation. An inappropriately sited heater or cooker, or defective heating, might ignite clothes drying in a room if the dwelling lacks a clothes-drying area. Disrepair to walls and the presence of non-fire-resistant materials spreads the fire. The number of floors on which the fire breaks out, and the absence of fire doors and smoke alarms are also factors that the inspector will consider. The inspector will then decide whether a hazard is, for example, in band B of category 1 or band D of category 2.
I have made available to the Committee copies of the current draft of version 2 of the HHSRS guidance. The document describes the method for assessing hazards, sets out the principles of scoring the hazards and placing them in bands, and lists the 29 categories of hazard covered by the system. It also gives advice on how local authorities should operate the system, how to use judgment, what they should look out for, and what can be done on the premises to remove or reduce a hazard.
I shall now turn to the interesting speech made by the hon. Member for Poole. He asked how the system related to the occupant. I should remind him and the Committee that the health and safety rating system is about the health and safety of the occupant, not the condition of the building. It is entirely occupant-focused. The hon. Gentleman seemed to assume that in identifying the likelihood of a dangerous incident, the inspector would make a judgment based on the occupant of premises at the time. As we debate the
Bill, the fact will emerge that the inspector will be able to stipulate the condition that if the nature of the occupants changes, the enforcement procedure will be expected to kick in.
I suspect that during our debates we will hear more than once about the problems of student accommodation, and the classic example is that the risk to a house full of students is different from that likely to be incurred in a dwelling occupied by an elderly person. Let us consider the steepness of staircases for example. On the whole, students might be expected to cope better with steep staircases, and if an accident occurred, a young, able-bodied person would be able to survive it more satisfactorily than an elderly or very young person.
Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)
I shall give way first to the hon. Gentleman, and then my hon. Friend.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
The Minister said that the system will be occupant-focused, which I understand. He then gave a pertinent example of the likely outcomes of various hazards applied to different people. The essence of my amendment is to say that although that is true on the whole—to use the Minister's words—it is not exclusively true. Other groups, including chronically sick people, disabled people and other people with permanent or temporary conditions, will be especially vulnerable, but not elderly. We need a better, more targeted approach to identify the vulnerability, which was articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole.
Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)
I shall address issues of disability in due course, but that point was helpful. I hope that it will further help the Committee if I elaborate on occupancy, the risk to the occupant, and the discretion available to the inspector in the circumstances.
Ms Geraldine Smith (Morecambe and Lunesdale, Labour)
I am a little concerned about the occupant focus. In Morecambe, there are a large number of flats in which live single young men who display antisocial behaviour and cause all sorts of problems. People want a better mix in those areas, as there are also older people with disabilities and families with children. Will different properties in the same area be assessed differently? Will that possibility be open simply to the interpretation of the council environmental health officer? That could cause considerable problems, with landlords challenging decisions in court. I welcome the Government's intentions—they are trying to do the right thing—but I foresee difficulties caused by the occupant focus and the discretion given to environmental health officers. In one area, different standards may apply in respect of single young men and the elderly.
Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)
We would expect the identification of a life-threatening hazard in a property to provoke the various necessary actions. A range of enforcement actions is available to the local authority. I understand my hon. Friend's point about the possible response of landlords to inconsistency of approach, but I defend
the proposals on the grounds that there is a need for inspectors and local authorities to adopt different approaches in different cases. The threat to an elderly person arising from certain kinds of physical defects is not the same as for a younger, able-bodied person. For various reasons that I hope to mention briefly, some discretion in such situations is appropriate.
Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton North, Labour)
Will my right hon. Friend clarify the dividing line between the proposals in question, which, even though they are occupant-focused, relate to a property's fitness standard and hazards, and an allocation system, which considers individual needs in detail and tries carefully to match up the person with the property? The edges of that question are slightly blurred, although it might be suitable to have clarification later, rather than now.
Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)
I shall be happy to take up that issue later and I hope that neither my hon. Friend nor I forget that we mean to have that conversation. I am slightly reluctant to follow the path of allocations now, since I am trying to keep to the central thrust of the debate.
Mr. Syms rose—
Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)
I see the hon. Member for Poole seeking to intervene. With his permission, I should like to complete a line of thought about the need for discretion that responds to the issues that he raised about burdens on landlords.
Landlordism and the private rented sector is an interesting theme. Broadly speaking, the private rented sector is fragile, as I am sure hon. Members with greater experience of such matters than I are fully aware. Despite various efforts by a succession of Governments over the past 15 years to boost the private rented sector, on the whole there has been relatively little expansion.
It is fascinating to analyse ownership in the private rented sector. One discovers that some 15 per cent. of dwellings in the sector are owned by corporate or institutional organisations, whereas 65 per cent. are owned by individuals, and that the median ownership of properties for rent is four. The industry was recently characterised to me, vividly but quite accurately, as a cottage industry. For most people, the property that they rent out is not their main source of income but an investment that, on the whole, is run without the benefit of management agents.
In other words, the sector consists mostly of small-scale economic activity, which is important to society and the economy. We all recall the words of the Chancellor in the pre-Budget statement about the importance of the private rented sector for labour mobility, and his welcome commitment to examine the possibility of introducing real estate investment trusts. The sector is also socially important for starter housing—the first rung on the housing ladder. However, it is fragile.
For those reasons, I make no apology—a point made also by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton—for saying that the Government tread somewhat warily when considering the burdens that
we are willing to place on that sector. That is why discretionary powers need to be put into the hands of the local authority. There are some bad and irresponsible landlords, and we shall be dealing with those folk in debating later parts of the Bill, particularly when considering selective licensing and some bad examples of houses in multiple occupation. However, we need to be sensitive to the burdens that we are imposing on the sector.
A uniform, across-the-board requirement to restore every kind of defect in a property would probably have the effect described of encouraging people to be restrictive in their choice of tenants or to get out of the industry altogether. I hope that I have explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) why we are adopting that approach.
Ms Geraldine Smith (Morecambe and Lunesdale, Labour)
I still have the concern that landlords who own seven or eight houses in my area might rent some houses to families with children, others to people with physical disabilities or mental health problems, and another to a group of single young men. That is the make-up of housing in certain parts of my constituency. Such landlords would find it hard to understand why different standards applied to each house. The danger, if the matter is open to discretion, is that housing officers may decide to go easy on the landlord because they do not want too much hassle in court and do not want to be challenged. It may weaken the legislation, and not give such residents the protection that is meant for them.
Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)
My view is that landlords would on the whole welcome the sort of discretionary regime that we propose rather than find it unacceptable. I should make it absolutely clear that when there is a danger to families with young children and elderly people—I shall come to the issue of people with disabilities in a second—we expect local authorities, through environmental health officers, to respond by issuing the appropriate enforcement action. We shall obviously be looking carefully at that process.
With the exception of amendment No. 216, this group of amendments seeks to prescribe extra elements of the components of the new system to be described in regulations. In doing so, the amendments make assumptions about the system and assume that it can absorb those further elements without losing its integrity. I am afraid that that is not the case. The point has already been made rather effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North and others.
Amendment No. 175 would amend the definition of hazard so as to clarify that deficiencies in buildings or land should be in the immediate vicinity. It is doubtful whether that would add anything useful. Why stipulate the immediate vicinity? It would be difficult to provide evidence that buildings or land not close to the building that contained the hazard had contributed to that hazard. Most deficiencies—dampness, faulty stairs, faulty wiring and so on—are likely to be in the building containing the hazard. However, if there were evidence of a deficiency in adjacent buildings, it would
be curious not to include the effects of such deficiencies in the assessment.
I turn to amendment No. 174. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has temporarily abandoned his place. Even if I speak on other amendments, I am not sure whether he will have returned by the time that I have completed my remarks. However, in the spirit of generosity that has prevailed in the Committee, let me at least give him the opportunity to return.
Amendment No. 176 requires that the hazard bands should be
''clearly defined by the appropriate national authority''.
Those hazard bands will be described in regulations, and to be effective and to stand up to robust legal challenge, they will need to be clear. I will ensure that when the regulations are put before the House they will be precise about the hazard bands.
I am delighted to see the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings returning to the Room. I can now turn to amendment No. 174, to which he spoke with such passion. I recognise his commitment to disability issues. I respect him for that, and for his purposes in tabling the amendment, although he will not be surprised to hear that I must resist it.
Amendment No. 174 would require disability to be taken into account in the methodology used to determine the seriousness of hazards. There are two initial problems with that, which have been identified in the course of our exchanges. First, in the system that we are introducing, the calculation of risk depends on population averages and on property averages. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman does not define ''disability''. He has not at any point in his amendment or his remarks mentioned registered disability, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North pointed out, is subject to a separate statutory regime.
The hon. Gentleman's amendment fails to take account of the risk-assessment system being developed, which I described in detail a short time ago. Assessments under the health and safety rating system are based on the risk to the potential occupant most vulnerable to that risk. That has become commonplace in our exchanges. The definition of a vulnerable group under that system excludes those who could be registered as chronically sick or disabled. That is because the evidence of health risk—the evidence base on which the system depends—mainly relates to age. The guidance excludes the registered disabled because of the potential need—my hon. Friend was absolutely right—for specialist adaptations to make the dwelling suitable. Taking account of disability in statutory enforcement regimes has far-reaching implications. To add elements that cannot be supported by evidence in an evidence-based system would damage the integrity of that system and might lead to successful legal challenge.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
The Minister is right that registered disabled people, particularly chronically and permanently disabled people, are best dealt with by a variety of means—home adaptations, typically, as suggested by the hon. Member for Northampton,
North. However, the Minister will also know that the estimated number of disabled people in this country varies between 6.8 million and 8.5 million. A very large number of people are not registered disabled and are not chronically disabled, but may be temporarily disabled. They may have a dynamic disability of one sort or another, which is changing, and their needs may change accordingly. They may have moderate learning difficulties. They may fall into all sorts of categories. They may be temporarily very ill. They will have housing needs, be subject to hazards and be vulnerable in a way that the Bill should identify and cope with. Only by defining ability and disability using a different kind of evidence-based approach will we get to the people that we need to reach if we are to make the Bill work to best effect.
Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not the least bit unsympathetic to his motives, and I do not suppose that any member of the Committee is, but the very generality of his description of the people to whom the provisions might apply and the lack of definition demonstrate the weakness of his case. It is impossible to put into statute a requirement for which there is no definition.
That said, let us revert to the discussion about the way in which the inspector exercises judgment. As any of us would, I would expect the inspector, at the final point in considering particular premises or property, identifying the defects and making the calculation of risk and the judgment about the danger of the defect, to take the circumstances of the occupant into account, but that is about the best that one could go for. Otherwise, we would undermine the scientific or at least quasi-scientific basis and the attempt to get it right.
We are right to go down the road of trying to inject an objective element into the process of assessing when action needs to be taken in order to get stock into a safer condition, but we must not push it too far. We must not lay extra elements on a process that was never intended for those purposes. For all those reasons, I shall resist the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)
The Minister has been very helpful. I was trying to tease out the difference between an actual and a potential tenant, and the Minister said that conditions could be added for a particular property. My only question is whether that would be made public. If a report were written on a property saying that the heating was substandard, would that information be available to a young couple with a baby before they undertook to take that property? Would the information be on a public register or would the landlord have to provide it? That seems to be the chink in the armour. If a report were written and the property was not appropriate for a family with two young babies, such a family should know that before they take the property off the landlord.
Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)
I entirely agree. An enforcement action—I think that the technical expression is a ''land charge''—would be on the public register and be a consideration in the acquisition of any of the properties. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's
question is yes. Such information is in the public domain; it is available from the local authority.
I do not want to detain the Committee much longer. I have certainly heard enough of my voice; even I am getting bored with it. I shall turn rapidly to the other amendments. Amendment No. 177 would add ''physical and environmental'' health to the definition of health. To add ''physical'' is unnecessary as health is defined under subsection (5) as including mental health. That does not mean that physical health is excluded. Health must include physical harm or it means nothing. Environmental health is dealt with by the health and safety rating system and is represented, for example, by hazards from pollutants.
Amendments Nos. 184, 185 and 186 are similar to amendment No. 176 and are not necessary. Regulations under clause 2 need to be clearly defined to ensure the efficient operation of the system. Finally, amendment No. 216 tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton would require piloting of the health and safety rating system before regulations to implement it are laid before Parliament. I must say to him, however, that version 1 of the system has been available for three and a half years since July 2000. It has been well tested and lessons have been learned.
Version 2 does not change the fundamental principles behind the system or the methodology that the inspector needs to follow. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that we will consult on the regulations before they are laid before Parliament, so that there will be further opportunities to fine-tune the system. I understand that some environmental health officers are a little nervous at the prospect of changing from a standards-based regime to one of risk assessment. Candidly, however, I am not willing to delay implementation. We have waited 18 years for the Bill and I am strengthened in my view by support for the speedy introduction of the housing health and safety rating system by the British Medical Association. For all of those cogent reasons, I urge the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to withdraw his amendment.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
Others may want to speak, but will I presume that they do not. By way of concluding this debate, I wish to say that I welcome what the Minister said about the discretion that is at heart of the proper enforcement process described in the proposals and debated in Committee. I will quote from the consultation document on enforcement guidance. He reminded us that the purpose of the assessment
''is not to set a standard but to generate objective information in order to determine and inform enforcement decisions.''
Essentially, the numerical analysis exists to provide the data following which a decision will be made.
In that respect, I am grateful for the Minister's comments about consideration of other vulnerable groups, which will undoubtedly form part of that informed judgment along with the numerical criteria and other observations and considerations. Issues relating to disabled or chronically sick people, people with learning difficulties or other groups of people that
I have described would become evident to the officer involved in the enforcement process. I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that that such matters will be taken into account when reaching an informed judgment. Based on that assurance and to speed up matters, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.