Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 242, in

schedule 9, page 183, line 17, leave out paragraph 4.

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 243, in

schedule 9, page 183, line 21, leave out paragraph 5.

Amendment No. 244, in

schedule 9, page 183, line 38, leave out paragraph 7.

Amendment No. 237, in

clause 192, page 135, line 5, leave out paragraph (c).

New clause 18B—Meaning of house in multiple occupation—

No. NC18B, to move the following Clause:—

'The Secretary of State may by regulation set out the meaning of ''house in multiple occupation''.'.

Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

The amendments challenge the Minister to explain why various buildings are exempted from the category of houses in multiple occupation and how he intends to use regulations to describe HMOs in future. Amendment No. 242 is a probing amendment. It would delete paragraph 4 to schedule 9, which will allow the Minister to set up regulations to exempt buildings from being HMOs. We want the right hon. Gentleman to confirm that he does not have any secret intention to exempt a huge number of buildings from that category. We are worried that the provision would allow him to make a substantial number of exemptions if he so wished, which could, in effect, negate the effects of the Bill.

When the Government consulted about HMO licensing in 1999, they favoured a broad definition of HMOs with specific clearly delineated exemptions from the licensing scheme. They stated:

''The Government favours the second approach with a broad definition and specific exclusions and would propose to use a definition based on the Scottish one.''

There is concern that the wide-ranging regulation-making power afforded under paragraph 4 could be used to create a more narrow definition of an HMO. One example of that could be the use of subsequent regulations to exclude from the HMO definition dwellings contracted by the National Asylum Support Service on the ground that the standards are regulated via the contracts between NASS and its main service providers. Such a move could result in some extremely vulnerable people living in dangerous housing conditions. There is already evidence that asylum seekers have been placed in substandard

private rented accommodation and that the current regulatory regime for such accommodation is ineffective in monitoring and enforcing standards. I want reassurances from the Minister that the Government will not make much use, if any, of paragraph 4. Hopefully, it exists only to deal with unforeseen circumstances and the Government do not see any likelihood of using the power in the next few years.

Amendment No. 243 would delete paragraph 5. I am sure that members of the Committee have received e-mails and letters about that provision, which covers the exclusion of university halls of residence from the licensing of HMOs. The Minister will say that the whole purpose of licensing is so that the landlords are known, and that they are seen to be fit and proper persons and are brought under the regime; and that is not necessary for university halls of residence because we know the landlords and they are responsible public bodies.

If the landlords are responsible public bodies, they will have nothing to fear from licensing. It will hardly be a hugely onerous duty for a university to register itself as a landlord, and registration would at least provide a framework under which to operate. It is odd that universities will be the nearest things to private owners specifically exempted from the regulations, because they operate in a grey area. It is apt today that we should talk about whether universities are private or public institutions.

It is for the Minister to flesh out the Government's thinking on that, because organisations like Shelter and the National Union of Students are quite concerned. It is feared that universities want to dispose of their halls of residence by selling them off, and some universities have already indicated their desire to do so. There might be some danger of that happening if licensing were an onerous burden. However, the licence would not be so onerous: it would not be the thing that tips a university over the edge into selling off its halls of residence. Some universities regard their halls of residence as liabilities; perhaps they should not do so, and perhaps there is a case for not allowing them too much independence in future. That, however, is a different debate.

There are good reasons why university halls of residence should be brought into the framework, not least because it would mean that there are procedures for an outside body to monitor and enforce standards. I know that probably only one good example has been cited of a university housing students in dreadfully poor conditions, and that the Minister will stand up and say ''There isn't a problem, so why are we dealing with it?'' However, that argument works both ways: if there is no problem, licensing will not be an onerous task for the universities.

There are some grounds to set regulations in this area. In fact, as I am sure the Minister knows, the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions said that

''the Government should return to the definition of an HMO proposed in its 1999 consultation paper. We do not see why educational establishments . . . should be exempted. If a broad

definition of HMO were adopted, certain categories or types of HMO could . . . be exempted from specific . . . controls, such as . . . licensing.''

The Select Committee does not see why educational establishments should be exempted.

There are some problems with university HMOs, although nothing on the scale of private operators. The form of licensing chosen would tend to pick the worst examples, which are not as bad as some of those in the private sector, and raise their standards. Universities would be forced to consider the standard of the accommodation that they provide. In most cases their provision more than fits the bill, but the amendment might make a few universities bring their worst properties up to standard.

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

Rather as John Bright said of Lord John Russell, one of the hon. Gentleman's predecessors, I have to tell him that he is probably ''flogging a dead horse'' with his amendment. However, I wonder whether he might test the Minister on his experience and knowledge of the arrangements that university authorities make to ensure that properties are up to standard. The Minister has on a number of occasions used that argument as a reason not to do what the hon. Gentleman proposes. He says that there are good informal arrangements in place, but he has never given us any detail.

Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

That is an excellent question for the Minister to answer. He has told us informally that the standards are high and there are plenty of arrangements in place, but I am not sure that that is so. He is relying on the fact that universities are ''responsible semi-public bodies''. There is no enforcement or regulation covering such buildings, and if a university were to allow its properties to deteriorate substantially, I am not sure what anyone could do about it. Perhaps the Minister can tread a bit into the territory of the Department for Education and Skills—its mind is probably on other things today—and see what is currently in force to regulate or enforce action against a university that allows the quality of its halls of residence to slip.

Amendment No. 244, which would leave out paragraph 7, is a probing amendment. The paragraph exempts a building that is occupied by

''one or more persons who have a leasehold estate in it granted for a term of more than 21 years''—

in other words, a long lease holder. That takes us back to a situation that was raised last Thursday. It is particularly common in student housing for the property to be owned by one student and for several other students to live in it. I can envisage a person who is a leaseholder for a term of over 21 years occupying a house but there being five, six or seven other people renting from him in that building; they are individual households in a three or four-storey property. That situation is probably more likely to occur in London more than anywhere else.

I do not want to dwell on this matter for too long, but I am concerned that there is a loophole for

somebody who is a leaseholder and living in the building. I do not think that they would be exempted if there were not a lease but they owned the building and lived in it, so why are they exempted if they are a leaseholder? On Thursday, the Minister for Housing and Planning made it clear that properties would be included if the owner was living in the building as well as other people, but I am talking about a leaseholder—a category that is currently specifically excluded.

Amendment No. 237 is also a probing amendment. It deals with clause 192(3)(c). I am slightly bemused by the provision that

''where a building is not structurally detached, it is not a house if a material of it lies above or below the remainder of the structure''.

I am confused because if a right-wing Government were ever to get into power—

Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)

They have.

Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

Well, suppose an even more right-wing Government than the current ones privatised Downing street and decided to sell off Nos. 10 and 11. It is my understanding that part of No. 10 goes out and above No. 11—a part of it now runs across the top of the other building. Would the buildings be exempt if they were used as HMOs? They would be, according to my reading of the Bill.

Those properties are not HMOs—at least not yet—but there could be other such cases elsewhere in the country. I am a bit bemused: if there are two buildings that are not entirely vertical because a part of one of them goes above and across the other one, are both exempt? I could be wrong, but I think that they would be. If not, will the Minister for Housing and Planning explain why this provision is in the Bill?

New clause 18B went with an amendment that was not selected because it was, in effect, a clause stand part debate about deleting clauses 192 to 195. I have a question about the new clause. The Minister likes his regulations—he likes giving himself powers to make secondary legislation. This Bill is stuffed full of statements such as, ''And we will make regulations elsewhere,'' but when it comes to defining an HMO—which we can imagine the Minister being tempted to do almost entirely through regulations—the Government have used five clauses and gone into quite a lot of detail. I am not unhappy about that, but I want the Minister to explain why he has decided to include all of that in the Bill, when he has chosen not to include lots of other things. What is so special about the definition of HMOs? What makes it so different from lots of other definitions that are to be dealt with through regulations?

The new clause would allow the Minister to make all those definitions through regulations. I am not suggesting that I want him to go down that route, but I would like him to explain why he has gone down it.

Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)

I rise to pick up on some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), particularly those relating to student accommodation. There are 260,000 students living in university halls of residence and 800,000 living in private rented accommodation, so we are talking about a pretty big segment of the population.

The NUS brief—which I am glad to see that the Minister has a copy of and which I have no doubt he has read in great detail—shows that there is concern, particularly about exemptions for university accommodation. Many students are in such accommodation for only 12 months, and if health and safety measures are not necessarily up to the job, it sometimes takes that long to get a report of a problem, by which time the students have moved on. The NUS is concerned that universities spend a lot of money trying to prevent local authorities from enforcing safety standards and that students are threatened with action by various university authorities if they report inadequacies to environmental health officers. The NUS alleges that:

''In Manchester this year, 300 students lived in a condemned building for three months due to accommodation shortages.''

There are real issues relating to student accommodation, and this is the day when students will be in the news. There has been a major expansion in the number of university students under both the previous and the current Government, and that puts strain on housing resources in certain towns and certain areas. It would be good if the Minister were to put on record the Government's reasons for excluding this important group, and I look forward to his response.

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

Let me begin by reassuring the hon. Member for Ludlow that there is no hidden agenda. There is no intention to introduce larger swathes of exemption beyond those identified in the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman asked about asylum seekers in private rented accommodation and whether the type of accommodation organised by NASS is likely to be exempted. The exemptions would apply only if such people were housed in accommodation owned by a registered social landlord or a local authority.

I remind the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that under part 1 the local authority has a responsibility for all the stock in its area; it has responsibility for pursuing all reports and anxieties about hazards. Indeed, part of the purpose of mandatory licensing is to enhance local authorities' scrutiny and intervention in respect of the stock that is most likely to be of risk. I shall return to the issue of student accommodation, but before I do so I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that that duty of intervention on the basis of the health and safety ratings system applies to all stock and that it allows enforcement action to be taken against university properties should they have defects.

I shall respond to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Ludlow and the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) about student accommodation, and the one asked by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) about university arrangements for monitoring student accommodation.

For the benefit of the Committee I shall give a brief description of the purposes of schedule 9. It describes buildings which are not HMOs for the purpose of part 1, and includes those regulated by other legislation and

prescribed as exempt by the appropriate national authority. That includes buildings occupied by students mainly for the purpose of pursuing full-time higher education, and owned or managed by the education establishment or a person specified by regulations. It also includes buildings occupied by long lease holders, members of their family and such numbers of persons as is specified in regulations.

I do not accept that it would serve any useful purpose to subject buildings that are already covered by existing legislation to any additional control. Children's homes, hospitals and care homes are all examples of such buildings. They are already controlled by the Care Standards Act 2000, and no purpose would be served by treating those properties as HMOs subject to the provisions of parts 2 to 4. Regulations will be made to prescribe properties only where there is already adequate control over the applicable management standards.

Amendment No. 243 would also exclude from the list of accepted buildings halls of residence owned and run by universities. We have carefully considered the case for extending the definition of HMOs to halls of residence. We recognise that there are various reasons why some people may want the Bill to extend to halls of residence, such as the desire for certainty that students would receive the same level of protection provided to occupants of HMOs by the licence proposals. The licensing provisions do not cover halls of residence because we believe that universities and other higher education establishments who own and manage such properties are responsible public bodies, and can be expected to take very seriously their responsibilities concerning the safety and welfare of students.

Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

Will the Minister give way?

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

I shall in due course, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will permit me to develop the argument and flesh out the case a bit more. I know that he has already expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that the public nature of these bodies constitutes a justification for our decision not to include university-run accommodation in the proposals.

We have always emphasised that the main purpose of the HMO licensing proposals is to be able to identify where HMOs are and identify the landlords of such properties for the purposes of part 1. For halls of residence owned and managed by education establishments that will not be the case, as the owners or managers of such accommodation are already known to the local authorities. We are also aware, and I hope that this will assist the hon. Member for Poole, that universities and other higher education establishments have dedicated safety officers who carry out regular condition surveys and clearly defined programmes for the maintenance of the halls of residence including gas, electricity and other installations on the premises. However, as I have said before, halls of residence are in any case not exempted from the health and safety provisions in part 1.

I share the objective of the hon. Member for Ludlow that there should be adequate protection for students living in poor conditions, and that there

should be adequate protection for people living in the neighbourhood of antisocial students—should there be such creatures. Extending the licensing requirement to universities is not an effective way of achieving either of those objectives. The Bill contains safeguards to take account of such concerns. For instance, where there is a particular problem for students living in HMOs that are badly managed or have inadequate facilities, a local authority can extend the licensing of HMOs to cover those properties. On the other hand, if the problem is mainly that students are behaving in an antisocial way—heaven forfend—and adversely affecting the neighbourhood, local authorities can use selective licensing to target a particular area.

The hon. Member for Poole made excellent use of the documents circulated by the National Union of Students entitled ''Safe As Houses'', which I have perused with interest. I drew it from the world wide web and found that I was invited to write to the Minister, Keith Hill MP, to express such concerns and to urge him to amend the Bill. That led me to consider the document with care. Although I do not dispute for one moment the fact that the NUS has been able to identify some appalling examples of badly run student HMOs, there is not a single piece of evidence in the document that would justify the inclusion in the measures of student halls of residence. There is an example, to which the hon. Member for Ludlow referred, in which students in Manchester were housed in very inadequate accommodation for three months, but that was explicitly temporary accommodation, which would not by any normal standard of judgment or definition fall under the category of a hall of residence.

Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I agree with the Minister that there is that one well-known case. However, there must have been more, because in their 1999 consultation, the Government said that

''there is some evidence of unacceptable standards in these sectors.''

That referred to universities and higher education establishments. The Government must have more evidence or they would not have written that.

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

The hon. Gentleman should remember that that was a document in which we set out a reasonably wide scope for consultation purposes. As I have said, I do not dispute the fact that there may be cases in which, unfortunately, halls of residence do not exhibit the best standards and may contain hazards. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that such places fall within the purview of part 1, and it is a local authority's responsibility to take action where there are hazards in housing in its locality. The basis of intervention, should it be justified, is already in the Bill. However, I emphasise that there is no general evidence—and the hon. Gentleman is not in a position to demonstrate any—of a problem with university-run and owned properties.

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

For the purposes of clarity and to reassure Committee members, the wider public and representative organisations such as the NUS, it might be useful to make the evidence to which the hon.

Member for Ludlow referred available to the Committee. The Government say that there is evidence, but we are fishing around in the dark to find out what that is and relying on third-party organisations to come up with what may be a partial report of the Government's position. It would be helpful if the Minister gave Committee members the opportunity to see the evidence.

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

The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. I undertake to establish whether such evidence is available, and if it can be located I will ensure that it is made available. I give no guarantees; many Government inquiries and much of our research and consultation are based on discussions between officials, local authorities and other interested parties, so assertions may be made verbally which are not found in written form. A great deal of the evidence adduced by the NUS in its briefing is of a reported nature, and not documented. However, we will do what we can and, if we find evidence, I will make it available to the Committee. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the point.

Mr David Kidney (Stafford, Labour)

What shocked me about the NUS briefing was the alleged behaviour of a small minority of those in university management in their dealings with students; for example, the threat of disciplinary action against students who contact environmental health officers to report facilities, and the withholding of degrees, the prevention of progression to the next academic year or blocking of access to library facilities in cases of accommodation debt. Such behaviour is unacceptable, but the briefing states that some of those restrictions are written into university regulations. Universities receive a lot of money from the public purse, so would not a good way to approach this matter be to use the fact that we pay many of their bills in order to uphold standards of decency in their management?

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

My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a reasonable point. I concur with him in condemning any intimidation, especially if it is designed to prevent the reporting of legitimate complaints about accommodation. However, for the record—and to achieve some balance—I also say that it was my reading of this evidence that in some circumstances universities impose penalties in response to the wilful withholding of rents and other payments by students. There is room for debate about the justifiability of that. However, we would not expect universities to engage in intimidatory behaviour, and I would expect the NUS to make representations about that to Education Ministers.

I remind the Committee of something that has already been stated: the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education might have more pressing matters than this one on his mind at present. I have agreed to meet him for discussions about the general issue of student accommodation, the pressures that arise from concentrations of student populations, and the way in which universities and local authorities might be encouraged to work together more closely—following the example that my Department and the Department for Education and Skills intend to set in this matter.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the nature of the reporting and complaints procedures in many universities? The NUS briefing raises concerns that arise from the relationship between accommodation and the withholding of degrees or issuing of threats not to progress students through their courses; those concerns relate to universities' complaints procedures. Has my right hon. Friend carefully examined the small print of the Higher Education Bill, which will be debated in the House this afternoon? There may be a change in reporting procedures for universities: there is a possibility that students will have much greater redress when universities attempt to take such sanctions against them. Can he recommend Committee members who could look at the small print of that legislation as this Bill progresses?

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

I am enormously grateful to my hon. and professorial Friend, who is a great authority on university matters. I must confess that I have found the small print of my own Bill sufficient to occupy me, so I have not had the opportunity to read the small print of the Higher Education Bill. However I am certain that what my hon. Friend said is right, and I agree that it would be to the great benefit of Committee members—or some of them at least—if they were to examine the small print of that excellent measure. Mr. Conway, I must not digress further into those areas.

The subject of amendment No. 244 is owner-occupied properties—properties occupied by the owner and his family. I do not believe that it can be justified to impose on them the sorts of controls that parts 2 to 4 place on privately rented accommodation. I am a little baffled by the direction from which the Liberal Democrats are coming at the moment. Last week, the party was in powerful regulatory mode. The mood today, however, seems non-regulatory except for the demand to extend the licensing provisions to such property. That suggests a lurch back to regulation, but for heaven's sake who am I to expect consistency from the Liberal Democrats?

The position is not materially changed if the family have one or two non-family members living in the home. The HMO licensing provision is aimed at identifying high-risk rented property and ensuring that there is an adequate standard of management. Paragraph 7 to schedule 9 is important to ensure that the provisions do not also apply to owner-occupied accommodation just because non-family members live with the family. Regulations will be made to ensure that only genuine HMOs are caught by the provisions.

Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

There seems to be a difference between someone with a long lease and someone who owns a building. We must bear it in mind that, in certain university areas, students own the properties; parents may have bought property in their son or daughter's name, and other students rent it. There may be six or seven people in the different properties, which could easily have three storeys made up of separate households. Such properties would be included in the licensing, because they are owner-occupied. However,

leaseholders would not be included, because they are specifically exempted. I know that the Minister has had his bit of fun, but I tabled the amendment to find out the difference between an owned property, which will be included, and a leased property, which will be excluded. I am baffled.

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

I did have a bit of fun; we all enjoyed it. On a serious note, however, I have to say that the hon. Gentleman has made a reasonable point, and I am content to take it up. We are discussing a difficult and complex area, and the Government are still feeling their way through the detail of these matters. I undertake to think further about the question of excluding freehold owner-occupiers, and I hope to come back to the hon. Gentleman with a clearer response, either in Committee or at a later stage.

Clause 192 sets out what buildings are relevant for the purpose of the meaning of a house in multiple occupation under clause 191. Subsection (2) defines the circumstances in which a building or part of a building may or may not be regarded as a house. Paragraph (c) provides that when a material part of a building overhangs or is beneath the structure of another building, it is to be regarded not as a house, but as a flat.

Amendment No. 237 would remove the effect of the provision and create uncertainty. The hon. Gentleman may have feared that the provision excluded that part of a structure from being regarded as an HMO. That is not the case, because if the building to which the part is attached is an HMO, the attached part also forms part of HMO. If the property were a flat and in multiple occupation, it, too, would come within the definition. Paragraph (c) is a technical provision, and it must be retained to ensure that an HMO can be determined as such for the purpose of clause 191. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

New clause 18B would provide that the definition of an HMO be removed from the Bill. It would require clauses 191 to 195 not to stand part of the Bill and HMOs to be defined entirely through secondary legislation. We recognise that there has been criticism of the current definition as difficult to understand. Allied to that is the desire to ensure that the problems resulting from the 1985 definition do not arise again. There is a fear that, as a result of defining an HMO in the Bill, a problem might arise that could not be amended because the definition is in primary legislation. However, there are significant regulation-making powers in the Bill, which we expect to allow sufficient flexibility to amend the definition, should anomalies arise.

The definition of an HMO is fundamental to the operation of the HMO regulatory regime. To have such a key piece of regulation defined through secondary legislation would inevitably draw substantial criticism. It is a case of ''damned if you do and damned if you don't'', but it is important to put the definition in the Bill.

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

The Committee, the House and the nation are entitled to consistency. I hope that the Minister will address the specific point made by the hon. Member for Ludlow, who in an unsophisticated

way has been rather engaging in describing the apparent paradox in a Bill that is flexible in allowing a great deal of its implementation to be defined by secondary legislation, but is in this part inflexible because, as the Minister implicitly acknowledged, it defines things very tightly. A slightly fuller explanation of the reason for that paradox is necessary to satisfy the Committee, the House and those who will be affected by the Bill.

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

I am not sure that I can provide an extended justification for including in the Bill a definition of what is and is not an HMO. I will only say that the Bill is substantially concerned with HMOs and with regulatory regimes for such houses, and in such circumstances it would be strange indeed not to include such a definition in the Bill. That conviction is further reinforced by the fact that problems of definition have arisen with earlier legislation. We want to eliminate such confusion by giving a clearer definition in this Bill.

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

I am sympathetic to the Minister; he makes a strong case about the need for clarity. However, will some kind of safety valve be considered at a later stage? The Minister says that there have been problems, which he has been right to identify, with the interpretation of earlier legislation. That means that the Government need to look closely at such matters, because problems that we cannot predict may yet arise from this definition. It is important for the purposes of clarity that the specifics of HMOs are defined, but there is little room for manoeuvre. The Minister says that there are other parts of the Bill under which the Government can govern by regulation, but I wonder whether a slight loosening of the definition is necessary to allow a degree of discretion in the event of disputes.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which I know is meant to be genuinely constructive. I am not sure that I will be able to satisfy him entirely. However, later parts of the Bill will provide the opportunity for further discussion of HMOs and definitions, and those debates might be the occasion for further exploration of such issues.

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the need to legislate for cases that may arise. I often say—although I have not had the opportunity to do so in connection with this Bill—that most legislation is about what may happen, rather than what will happen. It is ''what-iffery'', in which law-makers, such as we, try to envisage situations that may arise and suggest how they may be dealt with. It is legitimate to say that we should concern ourselves with cases that may arise, but we will revert to that in later discussions.

I am conscious that I have spoken at length, but I hope that the Committee will accept the reason for our an approach to this matter. I ask the hon. Member for Ludlow to withdraw his amendment.

Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister's answer on amendment No. 242 was satisfactory, particularly because he gave the categorical assurance that

properties used for housing asylum seekers will not be exempted unless they are in the hands of a local authority or a registered social landlord. I hope that he sticks to that assurance when the Home Office beats a path to his door, as I suspect it will at some stage, saying, ''We really must be able to house them in dreadful conditions, because we have got too many of them to deal with and we cannot process them fast enough.'' I am sure that the Minister's words would be used if, for example, any regulations came forward suggesting that they should be exempted. I am glad that he will hold firm on that; it is a considerable reassurance.

As the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said, one of the difficulties with student accommodation is that there is, perhaps, insufficient detailed evidence. Although it is said many times that things have happened, we do not know where or when, or any other details. The most disturbing aspect is the potential for universities to bully students. We might want to return to that matter on Report, so it may be best if it is left for the moment.

I am glad that after the Minister had his initial moment of fun, he realised why I had tabled amendment No. 244. There is ambiguity concerning leasehold and freehold properties. Hopefully, some clarification will be winging its way to us on Report; I foresee a Government amendment moving in one direction or another. The Minister has, however, satisfied me on amendment No. 237, and I agree with what he said.

I am still somewhat baffled about why this measure needs to be defined so strongly when the Minister seeks so much regulation for others. Because this provision is included, he has left himself open to being asked—every time we come to wording that says ''the Minister will, by regulation, introduce a measure''—why something is not included in the Bill,. I suppose that consistency is difficult to achieve in government, so it would, perhaps, be unkind to push that matter further.

Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton North, Labour)

Amendment No. 244 would leave out paragraph 7, but if somebody were living with their family in a property under a long lease and they had the protection regarding overcrowding, sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) would apply. Why is that different from somebody living in a freehold property who is bound by the same thing? This would be exactly the same.

Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

They are not treated the same. Paragraph 7 specifically exempts from the Bill properties where there is a long lease holder. There is no equivalent for freehold properties.

Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton North, Labour)

My understanding is that people living on their own or with their family in a freehold property will not come under the HMO restriction. If someone living with their family has a long lease, where they have the right to buy, they will not be treated as living in an HMO, which would seem to me to be complete parity.

Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Lady is somewhat confused. I gave an example of student accommodation in London—a building of three storeys or more with five or more people living in it, one of whom is the leaseholder. That would be excluded; but if one person were the freeholder and the other people were tenants, it would not be excluded from the Bill.

Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton North, Labour)

I would like to return to sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). If the person is living in a leasehold property with their family, the building is exempt: but if they have sub-tenants, the situation is wholly different. The treatment is exactly the same.

Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I am not sure the hon. Lady is right. Schedule 9 is about ''Buildings which are not HMOs''. There is no equivalent of paragraph 7 for freeholders—it is only for leaseholders. The point of the amendment was to ask the Minister to explain why freeholders and leaseholders are treated differently. Freehold properties are not stated to be buildings that are not HMOs where there are a number of tenants. The provision specifically exempts the situation where there is a leaseholder—one person, or one family—and a number of tenants in the same building. That building is exempt from being an HMO because there is a leaseholder occupying the property. The same building if the family occupying it owned the freehold will apparently not be exempt from being an HMO.

I am asking for clarity. The Minister admitted that there might be some ambiguity in the provision, which is precisely why I tabled the amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has agreed to have a look at the issue and come back with, if not a potential amendment, then some form of clarification. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 9 agreed to.

Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 238, in

clause 192, page 135, line 13, leave out 'women's'.

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 239, in

clause 192, page 135, line 16, leave out 'women's'.

Amendment No. 241, in

clause 195, page 137, line 11, leave out 'women's'.

Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I will be brief. Are the Government being sexist? Why does the provision refer to a ''women's refuge'' rather than just a ''refuge''? Forty per cent. of violence in the home is committed against men, and it is not unknown for the man to leave the household, taking the children with him. Other parts of the Bill talk about ''persons'' rather than ''women'', so why are refuges called ''women's refuges?

Ms Yvette Cooper (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

I have a considerable amount of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. Clause 192 sets out what

buildings are relevant for the purposes of the meaning of HMO in clause 191. In particular clause 192 provides that a women's refuge falls within the definition. Clause 195 provides for the circumstances in which persons occupy a building as their main or only residence, which includes occupation of a women's refuge.

In clause 192(5) which defines this type of hostel, it is very clear that the definition of person using the facility is not gender specific, so no court would determine that a hostel housing men escaping from violence should be treated differently from one housing women. I am also advised that section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 gives a presumption that in any Act of Parliament reference to the feminine gender includes the masculine gender unless the contrary intention appears. No contrary intention appears in the Bill; indeed, the opposite appears in clause 192(5), to which I have already referred.

The practical impact of the clause will not be to discriminate in any way between men and women. The term ''women's refuge'' is in the Bill because it is a generic term that is well understood to mean a secure place to which people suffering the threat of physical violence or mental abuse resort to escape that. I am happy to look further for a gender-neutral description of such a hostel, but I give the assurance that regardless of the term used in subsection (4)(b), the impact of the clause will be gender neutral and that that is the intention behind the provision. On that basis I urge the hon. Member for Ludlow to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

As the Minister will examine the issue and as it is clear that the group of amendments is not substantive, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 192 ordered to stand part of the Bill.