Clause 4 - Inspections by local housing authorities to see whether category 1 or 2 hazards exist
Housing Bill
9:10 am
Mr Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 220, in
clause 4, page 4, line 22, at end insert—
'or,
(c) the Member of Parliament for that district, or
(d) a further or higher education institution located in that district, or
(e) a Primary Care Trust serving that district.'.
The Government inserted subsection (2) into the Bill on the recommendation of the Select Committee. The subsection provides a mechanism for making official complaints to the housing authority that the housing authority must act upon in order to trigger an inspection. We debated the matter a little at a previous sitting, and we discussed the fact that the complaints procedure can be triggered without subsection (2). It can be triggered either through a housing authority review, undertaken under clause 3, or for any other reason. Such reasons could include ordinary complaints from a tenant or anyone else—perhaps a neighbour—who is concerned about the state of a dwelling. However, it is possible that complaints from tenants or neighbours may not be taken seriously and may not be investigated expeditiously.
I do not wish to malign local housing authorities—they take their duties seriously—but Liberal Democrat Members wonder whether the official complaint process should be strengthened a little. Amendment No. 220 seeks to add to the two mechanisms in subsection (2)—the option of going to a justice of the peace or a parish or community council—the option of going to a Member of Parliament, a further or higher education institution located in the relevant district, or a primary care trust.
In many ways, our proposals make more sense than the provisions of subsection (2), although I realise that that provision was recommended by the Select Committee. Seeking the help of a justice of the peace is normal procedure, going through due process, but I wonder what the JP will know of the property concerned. Obviously, photographic or other evidence could be produced, but it may take a lengthy period and the JP may not have the necessary knowledge. A parish or community council might be helpful in some areas, but I represent a part of a borough that does not have such councils, so that provision would not help my constituents. That is why we decided on the three
additions. They are not the only possible additions, and they may not be the best; indeed, the Government or other members of the Committee may suggest alternatives. However, we felt that they were best for three reasons.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that Members of Parliament deal with an awful lot of housing matters. I do, and I am sure that the Minister does. We are occasionally called to visit constituents in their homes to deal with specific housing matters such as overcrowding and other conditions such as damp, and we often make judgments. We do not deal with all housing complaints that come to us—if we did, we would have time for nothing else—but it happens occasionally. I believe that we are well placed to do that.
Including further or higher education institutions is relevant because they have a duty of care to their students. They have welfare and housing officers, and an accommodation department, and they could undertake to investigate students' complaints. Primary care trusts are strategically linked to general practitioners and health visitors, so they would have a role if we were concerned about the impact of the poor state of a property on someone's health.
Given the rationale of the amendment, it might make sense to add those provisions to the official complaint process in subsection (2). I doubt whether the Minister will accept the amendment, but I hope that he will share his thoughts with the Committee and possibly give an assurance that he will consider the question further, just as the Government did with the Select Committee's recommendations.