Schedule 9 - Buildings which are not HMOs (except in Part 1)
Housing Bill
9:10 am
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.