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

I beg to move amendment No. 269, in

clause 54, page 35, line 20, after second 'standards', insert

'relating only to health and safety'.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 257, in

clause 54, page 35, line 25, leave out 'and'.

Amendment No. 258, in

clause 54, page 35, line 26, after 'facilities', insert ', and'.

Amendment No. 259, in

clause 54, page 35, line 26, at end insert—

'(iv) bedrooms and sleeping areas,'.

Amendment No. 270, in

clause 54, page 35, line 29, at end insert—

'(c) standards as to the susceptibility to fire hazards'.

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

Amendments Nos. 269 and 270 define the tests as to suitability for multiple occupation more precisely. They identify health and safety considerations—which are at the heart of the purpose of parts 1 and 2—at the very core of the clause. Amendment No. 270 returns us to fire, as it specifically adds the standard of susceptibility to fire hazards to subsection (4).

In our consideration of part 1, we discussed hazard and risk of fire in relation to health and safety. In our discussion of part 2, it is important to be mindful that the licensing regime should be consistent with our considerations in Committee and the way in which the Bill reflects those subjects. The more explicit we can be in the Bill, the better. Our amendment is certainly explicit: it relates the tests for susceptibility of multiple occupation specifically to those health and safety issues. Fire has been used on several occasions to justify some of the Government's proper concerns about HMOs and housing standards in general. It would be bizarre if the Minister were to reject an amendment that makes large and specifically addresses the very concerns that he has highlighted.

The amendments are helpful and entirely consistent with the purpose of part 2, and on that basis I would be amazed if the Minister were to resist them.

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

Three amendments in the group stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Although I have considerable sympathy with amendment No. 270, I have none for amendment No. 269, which would, as I understand it, limit the prescribed standards to those relating only to health and safety. The difficulty is that some of the issues related to suitability do not necessarily come under those two headings, or it is difficult to prove that they do so.

My amendments Nos. 257, 258 and 259 are essentially one amendment. All deal with overcrowding, which has been touched on before.

Many people—including some Conservative Members—have spoken about overcrowding and its associated problems. These problems relate not only to safety or health, but to the educational attainment of young children, people's ability to put in a good day's work if they have not slept all night, and similar issues.

I hope that the Government might be moved to realise that they have an opportunity to make an impact on overcrowding. Including the number, type and quality of bedrooms and sleeping areas in the standards that can be prescribed would ensure that when an HMO is licensed, it cannot subsequently be overcrowded. I would have thought the Minister would want to make sure of that, but as things stand there is nothing to stop an HMO being licensed and for conditions then to become overcrowded. Then, we would have to revisit the 1935 legislation that there have been so many calls to adjust.

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

All that would be fine if previous amendments on overcrowding had been accepted, but the fact is that the attempts of the Opposition—and of some Labour Members—to insert overcrowding as a central consideration in earlier parts of the Bill were largely resisted by the Minister, although I acknowledge that the new fitness standard makes some reference to overcrowding. The hon. Gentleman criticises our amendment 269, but surely he does not assume that clause 54(4)(a)(i), which refers to

''bathrooms, toilets, washbasins and showers''

is about aesthetic considerations? We are not talking about the colour of the tiles—we are talking about health, safety and hygiene. Are not health and safety implicit in the clause, and would the clause not be weakened by our amendment being rejected out of hand?

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

My point is that the amendment would obstruct the amendments that I have tabled, which relate to the number and quality of bedrooms and sleeping areas, because it would be difficult to prove the health and safety grounds of overcrowding. Many problems of overcrowding cannot immediately be ascribed to health and safety categories. Although overcrowding may have health and safety implications, they would not be the sole criteria. If the Minister were foolish enough to accept amendment 269, it would prevent overcrowding legislation being brought in. As the Bill is framed, it would allow my aims to be achieved through secondary legislation, but I want them on the face of the Bill because I—and other hon. Members, I am sure—would prefer to see the provisions in statute, rather than have to wait for secondary legislation.

Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton North, Labour)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that overcrowding is relevant to clause 113 onwards, and that it might be possible to do something there? I have already tabled an amendment on the matter.

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

There are certainly overcrowding issues to be dealt with in relation to clause 113, and if the hon. Lady waits patiently, she may well discover that we support her amendment. That is probably enough to ensure the Minister will not accept it, though perhaps I am being too cynical.

We are making another attempt to get the overcrowding addressed in the Bill, and dealt with at the very point when we have the greatest control over a property—the point at which a decision is made on whether to license an HMO.

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

The hon. Gentleman is putting the cart before the horse. He is right about overcrowding—it is a critical issue. Other members of the Committee and I have made the point that he now makes very eloquently. Overcrowding has a direct relationship with health and safety and all of the other issues that we are talking about. By talking about health and safety, we encompass a range of conditions that have a deleterious effect on the health, safety and happiness of people living in HMOs.

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

The hon. Gentleman is trying to stretch his point: he has discovered that his amendment works against dealing with overcrowding, and he is backtracking fast. Other Committee Members share my view that relating overcrowding only to health and safety would restrict the ability to control overcrowding. Although under the Bill the Minister may prescribe other things later on, I would like the number of bedrooms and sleeping areas to be included. If he does not accept that, there will be great difficulty, because he will be saying that the Government are prepared to license overcrowded HMOs. Unless he tells the Committee that there is another route by which the problem is going to be dealt with, we will find that he is saying that overcrowding in HMOs is acceptable.

Mr Richard Younger-Ross (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Teignbridge, Liberal Democrat)

I apologise for not attending the meetings last week and this morning. Constituency matters that had been arranged for some time, including leading a delegation to Brussels, precluded my being here. [Hon. Members: ''Ah!''] I am so pleased to receive such a warm welcome.

In speaking in favour of the amendments to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow spoke and opposing the Conservative amendment it is logical to say that sleeping accommodation should be included in the list of accommodation standards—and not only because it is, up to a point, a health and safety matter. If that is not included, any architect who is asked to design a building or carry out a conversion will sacrifice the living area, because of the size standards for bathrooms and toilets that might be imposed on the accommodation. I say that from experience. Before I became a Member of Parliament, I spent many years in different architectural practices. If an architect is asked to squeeze a quart into a pint pot, they will look at the standard and try to prune whatever they can. The consequence of such a requirement would be that rooms for sleeping accommodation would be reduced in size.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow said, if there were a standard, it would simply stop overcrowding. The standard would say how many people there could be in so many square metres of floor space. Without a standard, it would be easy to go to a Japanese box system, which would be quite healthy because a fan could be positioned at either

end, under which there could be a box measuring two metres long, one metre high, one metre wide. It would be easy to say that that is a space that is adequate for sleeping in without any problems at all. However, I would not consider that to be adequate housing, and it would not be suitable for anyone to live in. It is not much bigger than the cardboard boxes on the streets.

We establish the standards for accommodation in other cases. We say that there shall be so many square metres per resident in care homes. If that is good enough for elderly people, why is it not good enough for people who are vulnerable, on low incomes and living in an HMO? Perhaps the Minister could seriously consider including in this Bill a standard that includes sleeping and living accommodation.

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

This interesting debate was marked by the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Teignbridge, come hotfoot from his sally to Brussels, where he ought to have had the opportunity to observe many houses in multiple occupation. Indeed, I confess that I was once the tenant of such an HMO. I remember very well my days as a poor student in a garret in the centre of that city. Gosh, I almost had myself going then, but now is not the time for nostalgia or reminiscences, so back to clause 54.

Clause 54 provides that the appropriate national authority may, by regulations, prescribe national minimum standards of amenities or facilities that must be available to render a house in multiple occupation reasonably suitable for the number of occupants. Subsection (4) sets out the matters that may be prescribed in the regulations. They include the adequacy of the number, type and quality of bathrooms, toilets and washing, cooking and laundry facilities. The Government intend to consult on those prescribed standards before laying the instrument before the House.

Subsection (2) provides that a local housing authority may require different, but not lower, standards than are prescribed by the regulations. It is important that local authorities can tailor that aspect of the licensing regime to reflect the individual circumstances of the housing market in their areas, the particular features of the HMOs or the needs and requirements of the occupiers. If, for example, a house meets the minimum standard of the ratio of the number of bathrooms to occupiers, but the available living accommodation in the HMO is not suitable for that number, the local authority may license the house only for the number of persons for which the accommodation is suitable.

I wish to make it clear that, if a local authority wished to impose standards above those that are nationally prescribed, they must be reasonable and, in particular, relate to the suitability of the HMO. It would therefore not be appropriate for a local authority to be required to take on board the perhaps far-fetched example that taps in the bathroom were gold-plated.

Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)

The Minister just pointed out that the authority would license a property for the number of people who were in it. However, it would license the

landlord and it is the landlord who would have tenants. The tenants might have people in the property of whom the landlord was not aware. That does happen, although I suspect more often in bedsit-type HMOs. Could a property be overcrowded because the tenants allowed people into it, resulting in the landlord losing his licence because he was unaware of those living in the property?

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

The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. It is conceivable that a local authority, perceiving that there was over-occupation of a property, would bring a case against the landlord. The case could only be brought against the landlord. I hesitate to trespass on those areas that belong to m'learned friends but, in those circumstances, I imagine that the landlord would have the reasonable defence of ignorance.

The circumstances would have to be proved—after all one of the conditions of the licence is good management of the property and, if a landlord were to allow over-occupation to persist for the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman, that would raise a question mark about the landlord's management of the property. To some extent, I am speculating, but I imagine that that would be the way in which the appropriate court or tribunal would want to examine the situation. Indeed, it would be the court that carries out such action, because permitting over-occupation of a property is a criminal offence, which I shall deal with in due course.

Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

I wondered whether it was correct that tenants commit the offence of overcrowding a property. That is consistent with the Housing Act 1935, which is one reason why that legislation is barmy. Clearly, there is a need for some consistency. Although I am not necessarily sure that there are likely to be any instances such as those outlined by the hon. Member for Poole, we may find a conflict of interpretation between that aspect of the overcrowding law and the matters under discussion.

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

Not for the first time, I am grateful for my hon. Friend's extraordinary expertise in these matters. If I may say so without excessively prejudicing the situation, I am inclined to agree with her observation: it is slightly odd that it should be the tenant who is found to be at fault in those situations. However, it is clear that the Bill places a responsibility on the landlord, and I hope to expand on that as quickly as possible.

A person who has been refused a licence, or is aggrieved by a condition imposed in the licence because the house does not conform to local standards, will have a right to appeal to the residential property tribunal against that decision.

Amendment No. 269 would require that the standards prescribed under the clause relate only to health and safety standards, but the clause is intended to deal with standards of facilities and equipment. It is about the number of stairs that a person has to climb to use a shared bathroom or toilet and with how many others they must share it. They may not be matters that rate highly in health and safety terms, but they are

important facilities and equipment that a tenant should expect in this day and age.

Under the amendment, standards set under the clause could deal with facilities and equipment only if they also related to health and safety, which are matters for the housing health and rating system and the enforcement regime under part 1. The provisions of part 1 are intended to work in tandem with licensing, not least through the provisions of clause 44. The standards of facilities and equipment prescribed under the clause will to a fair extent be different from, and additional to, what is provided in part 1, but fire equipment could be prescribed under the clause.

Amendments Nos. 257, 258 and 259 would include within the scope of the national prescribed standard regulations that the appropriate national authority may set standards as to the number, type and quality of bedrooms and other sleeping accommodation in HMOs. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings was right to say that hazards under the health and safety rating system are at the heart of the licensing provisions, but equally at their heart is the purpose of licensing, which is to ensure that HMOs are not overcrowded and that they have adequate facilities for the number of persons residing in them. It is a fundamental condition of the grant of a licence that the HMO is licensed for a specific number of occupants. The observations of the hon. Member for Ludlow in that regard were right. Clause 53(3)(a) makes provision to that effect.

The local authority, having regard to the size, layout and amenities of individual rooms, may also determine the maximum number of persons who may occupy them. That can be set as a condition of the licence. In deciding the suitability of the house or the number of occupants, the local authority must have regard to two factors: first, whether the living accommodation is reasonably suitable for the number of occupants; and, secondly—this is important—whether the house meets the standards required for multiple occupation by the number of persons for which it is licensed. It is for the local authority to decide, under clause 53(4), having regard to the suitability tests that I referred to previously, how many persons may be permitted to reside in the HMO.

The Government are aware that some HMOs will not be suitable for the number of occupants at the time that they are required to be licensed. That is why a licence condition may be imposed to require work to be done within a specified period to bring the house up to the required standard for the number of occupants. If an HMO cannot be rendered suitable for the number of persons living in the property at the start of the licence, the local authority may limit the maximum number of occupants to a figure reasonably suitable to reside in that house. If the conditions are so bad that a licence ought not to be granted at all, the authority must make an interim management order. We shall come to those in our later consideration of the Bill. Any local authority decision to refuse to grant a licence or impose conditions on a

licence will, as I have previously said, be subject to appeal.

I hope that I have sufficiently assured the hon. Member for Ludlow that the Government's proposals will ensure that HMOs are not overcrowded and are equipped with adequate amenities and facilities for the number of occupants. Indeed, we propose in clause 61(2) that it should be a criminal offence, punishable by a fine of up to £20,000, for a person to permit a licensable HMO to be occupied by more persons than it is licensed to accommodate. That is a fair sign of our seriousness.

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

I realise that much of the Bill is an advance, which is why we welcome the licensing of HMOs. There are indeed powers in the Bill to deal with the total number of people concerned. However, although the Government are happy to set a maximum limit for the cost of licensing throughout the country, I am slightly bemused that they are not prepared to set some minimum standards. We want minimum standards applied throughout the country on the quality of property, not on the quality and quantity of the sleeping areas. That should not be left to local variation.

I can envisage two London authorities having identical properties on either side of a street and one accepting that a certain number of people may occupy a house and the other allowing a different number. To the average man on the street, that would make no sense at all. It is in exactly this area that we need national consistency and national minimum standards.

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

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right in that regard. To take one obvious example, the nature, size and type of properties will vary from locality to locality. To that extent, it would seem unlikely that in a conurbation such as London one would find two adjacent authorities with wildly differing standards. However, I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the type of property that might be found in a seaside resort with a grand Victorian or Edwardian history may be very different from the sort of property found in a city with a history of small workshop enterprise or textile activity.

It is one thing for the Government after appropriate consultation to say that there should be x number of bathrooms per HMO for y number of residents as an absolute minimum standard. That is fundamental to hygiene and health. It is quite another matter to second-guess local housing markets and the conditions, layout and size of HMOs in that market, in order to require the number of sleeping rooms to be provided in every case and every circumstance. That is a matter for the judgment of the local housing authority, using its own expertise and knowledge of individual circumstances.

Mr Richard Younger-Ross (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Teignbridge, Liberal Democrat)

If the Minister will not prescribe the exact sizes in national standards, would his Department lay down guidelines for authorities on what is reasonable so that they have some framework in which to act?

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

In all matters of guidance and regulation, as the hon. Gentleman will have heard in the course of our deliberations so far—I am not making a cheap jibe—the Department engages in extensive consultation with appropriate organisations, local authorities, professional bodies and so on. I can certainly reassure him that we will consult extensively before we introduce guidance in such areas.

Amendment No. 270 provides for fire safety standards to be prescribed. That matter also relates to the part 1 health and safety regime. So far as fire equipment is concerned, what may be prescribed under clause 54 will complement local housing authorities' powers under part 1.

For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to withdraw the amendment.

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

The Minister made a compelling case in respect of the need to extend the regime beyond the confines of health and safety, although I remain convinced that we should never allow health and safety considerations to be downgraded when it comes to the way in which we perceive such matters. The link between overcrowding and health, for example, is one of the most powerful arguments that can be made about the undesirability of overcrowding. I accept that there are also quality of life issues. The Minister did not use that phrase, but he certainly implied that there were such issues when talking about the characteristics of HMOs. Such issues might also need to be taken into account, and are dealt with in this part of the Bill.

However, the Minister made an unconvincing case about amendment No. 270. The argument for including ''fire hazards'' is entirely consistent with part 1 of the Bill. Indeed, he said that what is included in the Bill complements the new rating system. I would have thought that if this part of the Bill, which relates to the licensing regime, is to work in tandem with part 1, it can only be helpful to include in it an analysis of fire hazards. Will the Minister intervene and justify once again his argument for resisting the amendment? He might go so far as to say that the Government will consider it and might bring it back at a later stage. At the very least, the argument for the amendment has, I hope, been reasonably well made, but it has been virtually ignored by the Minister.

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

The hon. Gentleman invited me to intervene. The clause is concerned with facilities and equipment, and fire appliances in HMOs are, as he will be aware, entirely covered under part 1. It is unnecessary to put such requirements into the Bill at this point when they are already adequately covered.

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

I hear what the Minister says, but this part of the Bill specifically states that the housing authority needs to be satisfied, for the purposes of clause 53, that the house is reasonably suitable for multiple occupation. There is proper consideration of washbasins, showers and bathrooms, areas of food storage, preparation and cooking, and laundry facilities and so on, but there is no mention of the safety equipment—smoke alarms are a good example—that might reasonably be expected in an

HMO to deal with a fire hazard. It is true that considerations relating to fire hazards are dealt with extensively in part 1 and in the guidance. We have debated those provisions at length. However, it would be desirable to refer back to them at some stage in this part of the Bill. I will put it no more strongly than that.

I am yet to be convinced, but I trust that the Minister has noted the perhaps untypical vehemence with which I have pressed my point and I hope that he will give the matter further consideration. I will resist my instincts to press the matter because I know that my hon. Friends feel that we need to move on and consider the Bill with alacrity. On that happy note, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.