Clause 8 - Clause Guidance about inspections and enforcement action
Housing Bill
10:15 am

Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 187, in

clause 8, page 6, line 32, leave out 'may' and insert 'will'.

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley and Sidcup, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 188, in

clause 8, page 6, line 33, leave out 'about exercising' and insert 'on'.

Amendment No. 173, in

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

'(d) their functions in relation to fire safety legislation and in particular the installation of automatic fire sprinklers in properties to which Part 2 applies.'.

Amendment No. 189, in

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

'(d) the new qualifications and training required by Environmental Health Officers to undertake these functions.

(e) the nature and expenditure of time required so that these functions may be considered to have been properly fulfilled.

(f) the circumstances in which they may be required to compensate landlords for costs incurred in the carrying out of their functions.

(g) their functions in relation to fire safety legislation and in particular consideration be given to the installation of automatic fire sprinklers in HMOs'.

Amendment No. 246, in

clause 20, page 14, line 3, at end insert—

'(2A) The local authority may seek the guidance of the appropriate national authority on any of the requirements specified in (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) of subsection (2)'.

Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)

We seem to be cantering through the Bill. The thrust of our amendments is to tease out a little more about guidance for the enforcement and inspection regime. We also want to know the likely costs for local government.

Subsection (1) states:

''The appropriate national authority may give guidance''.

It is clear that guidance does not need to be given, which is why we suggest in amendment No. 187 that it ''will'' give guidance. I wonder whether it would be nice to give the National Assembly for Wales the choice; I presume that when the clause talks of a national authority it must mean either the Government or the Assembly.

The guts of what we wish to discuss come in amendment No. 189, which would add paragraphs (d), (e), (f) and (g). Paragraph (d) would make it transparent what training were expected. It is clear that roles to be undertaken under the new system will

require training. The briefing paper suggests that environmental health officers may need up to five days' training. That might vary, but one ought to be specific about what is required of local authorities.

Paragraph (e) is proposed because certain specifications are expected of local authorities. Paragraphs (f) and (g) also add to the guidance. We are trying to expand the degree of guidance needed so that the time and cost implications for local authorities are much clearer and more quantifiable.

The Opposition's general theme is to try to ensure that the costs of the new system to local government are fully compensated for. It is therefore important that central Government gives local government specific guidance so that it is much easier to quantify its duties. Legislation sometimes states that local authorities ''shall'' do something, and some authorities, which are gold-plated, do it very well, while others do it less well. We want the situation to be clear so that authorities know what the costs are and the Local Government Association can make representations to the Government for proper compensation.

Unless the Minister reassures us fully, we may be minded, at an appropriate point and with your indulgence, Mr. Conway, to press amendment No. 189 to a Division.

Dr Brian Iddon (Bolton South East, Labour)

Amendment No. 173, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, relates to fire sprinklers in HMOs. Its purpose is to make the link between HMOs, which are covered mainly in part 2, and an effective hazard remedy with statutory guidance on part 1. It draws attention to the significant contribution that sprinklers can make to ensure a safe HMO environment. I am sure that it will have cross-party support because on Second Reading the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) and the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope) referred to the tragic deaths of two brothers who lived in an HMO. The hon. Member for Wealden took a delegation to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who signalled that the Government were paying significant attention to the amendment. I, too, spoke about sprinklers on Second Reading.

Some 35 per cent. of all fire deaths and 39 per cent. of all fire injuries occur in HMOs. In 2001, there were more than 22,500 fires in HMOs, which resulted in 116 deaths and more than 4,700 injuries. Those are significant statistics, as I am sure Members will agree. Between 1991 and 2001, injuries caused by domestic fires increased by 19 per cent. In 2001, the total was 13,881. The total cost of residential fires, including fires in HMOs, stands at the record figure of £1.9 billion. The fire risk is therefore significant, and my amendment, if it is accepted, would go some way to addressing that obvious danger to the community. I believe, as do many Members, that sprinklers are an effective way of reducing the personal injury, physical damage, grief and financial hardship caused by fires.

Despite what I have said, the cost of installing sprinklers is significant, but I have learned that landlords and others can greatly offset the cost of installation against the reduction in insurance premiums. Insurance premiums continue to rise because of the risks that I have described, but I stress that insurance costs should stabilise, if not go down, if we can halt the rise in fire deaths in HMOs.

There are many myths about sprinklers. In Hollywood films, when there is a fire in a building, including in a domestic one, sprinklers go off all over the building. That is a myth. Sprinklers do not go off all over the building. Sprinkler technology goes back 100 years and is very high-tech today. If a fire starts in a room in which there is a sprinkler, only the sprinkler head in that room will be activated. As the fire travels through the premises, the rest of the sprinkler heads of the sprinkler system will be activated in turn.

Another myth about sprinklers is that they cause huge damage to premises, including domestic premises, which I am discussing. The amount of water from a sprinkler head needed to extinguish a fire is far less than that which is used when the fire brigade arrives and pumps large volumes into the premises. Fire sprinklers not only save lives but probably cause significantly less damage than the fire brigade can cause when it arrives on the scene.

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

The hon. Gentleman is making a convincing case. His argument will be made more convincing if he accepts my suggestion to link it to the new draft guidance, which refers to the hazard of fire. Shockingly, although the incidence of fire is relatively small, the possible health outcomes are profoundly worrying, particularly in older properties and for older occupants. That is made clear in the table on page 195 of the guidance, which makes a strong case in support of his amendment.

Dr Brian Iddon (Bolton South East, Labour)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point, which I fully accept.

Finally, I remind the Minister that in 1997 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, then the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, commissioned research by Entec Ltd. That research reported that 52 per cent. of HMO fire deaths occurred in buildings that were three or more storeys high, even though 16.5 per cent. of households lived in such buildings. A tenant living in a bedsit house of three or more storeys is almost 17 times more likely to be killed in a fire than an adult living in a similar, single-occupancy house. The amendment is a good one, and I hope that the Minister is minded to accept its spirit, if not its detail.

Mr Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

I support all the amendments in the group. The amendments tabled by the Conservative Front Benchers are excellent and the amendment on fire sprinklers tabled by the hon. Members for Bolton, South-East and for Stafford deserve the Committee's support. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East raised serious issues about fire sprinklers, on which the Government need to move. On Monday we shall no doubt have that debate on Second Reading of the Fire and Rescue Services Bill, through which the

Government seek to adopt a more preventive approach. The hon. Gentleman made a serious contribution to explaining why they should. I end by saying that Okocha was on fire last night and Bolton did very well.

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

The clause enables the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly in Wales to give guidance to local housing authorities on the exercise of their functions under part 1. I hope that that addresses the concerns of the hon. Member for Poole. Such guidance will broadly fall into two categories: how a property is to be inspected and hazards are to be assessed using the housing health and safety rating system; and how authorities should apply the enforcement duties under powers provided in part 1 once they have assessed a hazard. Those relate to the use of improvement notices, prohibition orders, hazard awareness notices, demolition orders and clearance, and also to the use of the emergency measures that have been added to the Bill by Government amendments.

Amendment No. 187 would place the appropriate national authority under a duty to give guidance rather than giving it the power to do so. The Committee need have no anxiety about that; I am more than willing to issue guidance. Indeed, I regard it as essential for local authorities to have clear guidance if they are to carry out their functions effectively. However, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for the relevant national authority to be under a duty to give guidance.

Although the hon. Member for Poole is eminently reasonable in his style and in the character of his speeches, I am very disappointed by amendment No. 188, which states:

''Leave out 'about exercising' and insert 'on'''.

That strikes me as just a tad pedantic. Perhaps he would like local authorities to have an academic dissertation on the philosophy of housing conditions rather than a usable document that will be of help to them in the practical business of carrying out their functions. He should get real.

Amendment No. 189 adds to the topics on which guidance may be given. It appears to reflect some concern about the ability of authorities to adapt to the health and safety rating system and the new enforcement regime. The reference to fire safety, which overlaps with that in the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford—amendment No. 173, so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East—indicates a different concern about the way in which the health and safety rating system deals with fire safety issues. I shall return to fire safety after I have addressed the other matters dealt with in amendment No. 189.

It is self-evident that a local authority has to ensure that it can carry out its functions. In order to do so, it has to employ officers who are capable of doing a particular job. Fortunately, authorities already have qualified professional officers: environmental health officers. I accept that the health and safety rating system is new and that officers will need familiarisation. However, I have no reason to think

that they are likely to need new qualifications, as set out in the amendment. I am slightly curious about the matter, although I do not want to press it.

Version 1 of the health and safety rating system was issued in July 2000 to enable local authorities and the profession to familiarise themselves with its principles. There were some operational difficulties with version 1 and we have worked hard to iron them out. However, there is no fundamental difference of principle between versions 1 and 2. That being so, it does the profession no favours to suggest that those of its members who have inspected numerous properties in order to assess fitness now need new qualifications in order to carry out hazard assessments—assessments that will be backed up with comprehensive guidance and, if authorities so choose, information technology support.

The new subsection (1)(e) that amendment No. 189 would insert into clause 8 seems to be an attempt to write a regulatory impact assessment into the guidance. The guidance on the use of enforcement tools cannot be the place for a regulatory impact assessment. Inspections are likely to vary considerably in the length of time that they take, both in the field and back in the office.

The computer program, which will be part of version 2 of the health and safety rating system, should enable inspectors to save time by entering data as they carry out the inspection. We envisage that many authorities will have one of those devices that gas and electricity meter inspectors use to enter data on the spot, after which time that is recorded and the calculations made.

As for the proposed new subsection (1)(f) under amendment No. 189, it is not clear in what circumstances authorities may need to compensate landlords. Landlords will have a right to appeal against the improvement notices and prohibition orders for which the Bill provides before they take effect. However, in the case of emergency measures added to the Bill by the Government's amendments after the measures have been taken, compensation may well be the outcome of an appeal in such cases.

I suggest that compensation should be dealt with on appeal. I cannot agree that it should be a matter for Government guidance under clause 8 or, indeed, that there should be a presumption of compensation for a landlord who has kept his tenancy conditions so hazardous that a local authority felt it had no option but to take enforcement action. Before leaving the general matter of guidance, I wish to remind the Committee that one of the documents that we published last month and which has been made available to the Committee is a consultation document inviting comments on the draft guidance. We take the consultation exercise seriously. We have widely distributed the draft and have invited comments by 26 March. We are preparing non-statutory guidance for landlords. Responsible landlords will want to work alongside local authorities from a position of mutual

understanding and the landlord guidance will, we hope, help to achieve that. We shall be consulting on such matters in due course.

I turn to amendment No. 173 and the aspect of amendment No. 189 that deals with fire safety. I thought, as ever, that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East spoke powerfully. He put a good case about the fire risk in HMOs. Indeed, it is on the basis of his analysis that we are bringing forward our proposals for HMO mandatory licensing, especially with regard to occupied HMOs with three storeys, where the greatest fire risk is located. I accept the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's analysis of fire in HMOs. Fire risk is one of the 29 hazards that are dealt with by the health and safety rating system. It is an important hazard and I assure members of the Committee that the guidance will certainly deal with the handling of fire hazards.

I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I do not believe that it is necessary to single out fire safety on the face of the Bill. Perhaps I should say something about the way in which local authorities are being asked to deal with hazards. The Committee now has a comprehensive understanding of such matters in the light of—it says here—my very clear exposition at our previous sitting. However, we worked on the matter together and we developed a common understanding of such matters.

I shall recap briefly. When inspecting the property, the inspector asks, ''What is the likelihood of an incident taking place—for example, the risk of an outbreak of fire—and what harm will be caused, taking account of other factors, such as the precautions that have been taken in the property and the means of escape?'' Clearly, the same severity of harm—death or serious injury—can arise from a high risk of fire as from a fall or an electrical hazard. We want local authorities to prioritise action against all serious hazards, whatever their profile. We will emphasise that in the enforcement guidance that we will issue to authorities, which will also include advice on how housing authorities can work with fire authorities to ensure that housing and fire-safety legislation work effectively.

Where an authority has assessed a serious category 1 hazard it will have a duty, under clause 5, to take appropriate enforcement action. Should it serve an improvement notice under clause 9, the action taken by the owner or landlord must—as a minimum—ensure that the hazard ceases to be a category 1 hazard. We do not prescribe specific means of dealing with hazards, because that would be inconsistent with the risk assessment system. However, the technical guidance on fire hazards that we have issued under this clause will point to the greater risk of fire in multiply occupied buildings. It will also say that for any such building there should be adequate fire protection, including means of escape, appropriate fire detection and alarm systems and, where appropriate, emergency lighting and sprinkler systems or other firefighting equipment. That will appear in the guidance. We will expect inspectors to enforce along those lines where a hazard is identified.

I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East and of the Committee to the requirements of the proposals in part 2 on mandatory licensing of HMOs—specifically, that there should be an annual return by the landlord of an HMO regarding proper certification of gas, electrical appliances and smoke alarms. That is set out in schedule 4.

Dr Brian Iddon (Bolton South East, Labour)

Does my right hon. Friend envisage a situation whereby there had been a serious fire in an HMO, and the local authority had advised the landlord to fit sprinklers to prevent any further deaths in that property and they had not done so? Does he envisage a situation in which the local authority would have the right to take enforcement action to fit a sprinkler in such a property if the landlord had refused to accept guidance?

Keith Hill: The answer to that is yes. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend. I say to him again that, of course, where an inspector makes such requirements we would expect the landlord to respond. We will not require authorities to have sprinklers in all HMOs, but it will be appropriate to fit them where the risk justifies it. Although the technical guidance may be difficult to digest and look difficult to read, it could not be clearer about that requirement.

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

Will the Minister go as far as to say that the guidance will recommend smoke alarms, which are inexpensive and easy to fit, as a matter of course in those high-risk properties?

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

No, I do not think that I am in a position to include them as a matter of course. However, certification for mandatory HMO licensing will require evidence that smoke alarms are in place; that is already in the Bill.

We are talking about the generality of stock. Part 1 begins by stating that local authorities have a responsibility for the good condition of all stock in their district. We must think about the impact of such a crime, and the burdens on local authorities and home owners. It is for those reasons that I cannot make such an undertaking.

Government new clause 3 requires local housing authorities to consult fire authorities before taking enforcement action under part 1 in HMOs or in the common parts of a building containing one or more flats. That is the type of property where fire risks are highest.

Amendment No. 246 would enable a local authority to seek guidance on the mandatory contents of prohibition orders. Our guidance will be so comprehensive and splendid that it will be hard to envisage an authority seeking anything more. More seriously, it is not for the Government to tell local authorities what to do in particular cases. I am sure that the Committee broadly shares that sentiment.

For all those reasons, I beg the hon. Member for Poole to withdraw his amendment, and I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East not to press the amendment on which he spoke.

Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)

The Government need to be pressed on these matters—and certainly with regard to amendment No. 189. But first, as the Minister gave a perfect, wonderful and excellent explanation in the current discussion, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 187.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 10, in

clause 8, page 6, line 37, leave out second 'or' and insert—

'(ba) their functions under Chapter 2A in relation to emergency remedial action and emergency prohibition orders, or'.—[Keith Hill.]

Amendment proposed: No. 189, in

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

'(d) the new qualifications and training required by Environmental Health Officers to undertake these functions.

(e) the nature and expenditure of time required so that these functions may be considered to have been properly fulfilled.

(f) the circumstances in which they may be required to compensate landlords for costs incurred in the carrying out of their functions.

(g) their functions in relation to fire safety legislation and in particular consideration be given to the installation of automatic fire sprinklers in HMOs'.—[Mr. Syms.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 8.