Clause 44 - Licensing of HMOs to which this Part applies
Housing Bill
2:30 pm
Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
Amendment No. 227 is a Liberal Democrat amendment, but like the Conservative amendments it is a probing amendment that challenges the Government's thinking, not so much about the Bill, but about the accompanying regulations. We wonder what prompted the Government to restrict the licensing of HMOs to properties of three storeys with five or more occupants. I realise that there are other proposals for HMO licensing—before the Minister gets to his feet, I know that if an area has a problem, the council can apply for selective or additional licences. I realise also that additional licences could get around some of the problems of what has been called ''studentification''. However, concerns remain that the Government are setting the framework too tightly.
The framework is fairly new to the public. Labour's 1997 and 2001 manifestos make no mention of the mandatory licensing of HMOs being restricted to properties of at least three storeys with five or more occupants. I am sure that many of those who read the manifestos believed that licensing would apply to other properties, so some will be disappointed. The Minister may wish to explain how that fact was accidentally omitted from the manifestos. In 1998, the Department issued a consultation paper on HMO licensing; again, the threshold was not mentioned in the consultation paper.
Most tellingly, Government relied on the Entec report to pick out the most dangerous properties. I believe that the reasoning behind their desire to restrict the provision to properties of three floors or more and five or more occupants is that they are the most dangerous HMOs, but can the Minister say why the Entec research concludes that HMOs of three or more storeys but with only three or four occupants do not pose as high a risk as those with five or more occupants? I understand that the Entec report concludes that all three-storey HMOs pose a high risk, but I am particularly concerned about the question of the number of storeys.
There is considerable support for a broader definition of HMOs. Shelter would like to see a change, as would the National Union of Students, because most students not living in university accommodation occupy two-storey properties; they tend not to live in three-storey properties. Others would support a broader definition: for example, various HMO action groups have sent me e-mails and letters asking for a better definition.
The Entec report mentioned the risk to people in HMOs that would fall outside the Government's prescription. It states:
''this does not infer that risks in these HMOs''—
that is HMOs of less than three storeys—
''is negligible. Indeed, about 40 per cent. of the deaths in two-storey bedsits and shared houses occur on the floor above that of fire origin, demonstrating that there remains a risk of people being trapped by fires originating elsewhere in the building, particularly where the building is occupied by vulnerable persons. Also, 48 per cent. of all HMO fire deaths occur in buildings of one or two storeys.''
That suggests a significant problem, and one that occurs not only in properties with three or more floors.
The Government need to take the opportunity to explain their thinking, because people are concerned that Ministers are being over-prescriptive. I realise that making the change suggested by amendment No. 227 is not the way to do it—the Minister need not explain why the amendment would not work—but it allows him to explain the Government's position. If the Minister were to say, ''Actually, we are restricting licensing to HMOs with three floors and five or more occupants as a first stage because of the work involved, and then we will extend it,'' he might be met with some understanding. If he said that the scope of licensing will be extended in a year or two, people would have confidence that progress is possible. However, the Department has given no indication that it has any plans to do that.