HL Deb 30 January 1984 vol 447 cc451-3

2.58 p.m.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government which provisions of the Housing (Houses in Multiple Occupation) Bill of 1979 have been enacted in other legislation; which have been brought into operation; and what further steps they propose to take.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, the Housing Act 1980 made special grant available for providing means of escape from fire and made the grant mandatory if work is necessary for compliance with a relevant local authority notice. These provisions have been in operation since 1980. In addition, the Government made an order under Schedule 24 to the Housing Act 1980 in respect of means of escape from fire from houses in multiple occupation and are currently reviewing the scope of that order. We also hope to be able to publish a code of guidance on fire safety in houses in multiple occupation this year, after consultation with all the relevant interests.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply, but because of the situation may I urge the Government to move faster? Is the noble Lord aware that the Government's own fire statistics covering 1978 to 1981 show that 550 people living in multiple occupation died from fire or through its effects, and that those figures also show that people living in multiple occupation are nine times more at risk than people living in ordinary accommodation? Could I therefore urge the Minister, if there are any proposals in the pipeline, to ask the Secretary of State to speed them up?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I share the concern of the noble Lord about the hazards of fire, especially in houses in multiple occupation. But the normal mechanism for dealing with hazards from fire is the Fire Precautions Act 1971, which is currently under review, and I would hope that one of my noble friends will be able to announce the results of the review before too long.

Lord Stallard

My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the standard of houses in multiple occupation, certainly in inner city areas, continues to deteriorate due to a lack of resources available to local authorities, while the numbers and the needs of people who require such accommodation increase? Will the noble Lord try to persuade his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to look at two simple proposals which were in the 1979 Bill referred to by my noble friend? The first is the need for local authorities to inspect on a two-year cycle all houses in multiple occupation in their areas. The second proposal is the need for a more simplified procedure of enforcement on landlords and others who do not keep up standards.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has raised two points. On the second point I would say that since the noble Lord introduced his Bill and the second Bill came under the consideration of another place, both local authority associations and the Government have looked at the proposal and have come to the conclusion that it would be too dirigiste and too costly to implement. With regard to the noble Lord's other point, I do not think that it is a question of the amount of money that local authorities have for the purpose; it is the way in which they themselves choose to spend it, which is of course their prerogative.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that those people who live in houses in multiple occupation are among the most vulnerable in our society, not merely because of the conditions, but also because of the danger? Will the Minister also acknowledge that one of the prime and great benefits of the new legislation, which had support in all parts of this House and in another place, was to change the basis from a discretionary one to a statutory one? No matter how quickly the consultation is taking place, it must be speeded up, and no matter how much local authorities are willing to implement the legislation, what are needed are powers of enforcement. What we do not want to see are dreadful cases of fires in houses in multiple occupation, such as we have seen in recent years.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I have already commented on the question of fires and have given an assurance that the matter will be reported to the House as soon as may be. With regard to the occupants of houses in multiple occupation, yes, my Lords, by definition they must be some of the most disadvantaged members of society. So far as the structure of a building goes, local authorities already have very wide powers. The question at issue is whether they should be compulsory powers, or whether these wide powers should be left to the discretion of the local authorities themselves to use as appropriate. The Government's view is that the latter course is right.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, in thanking the Minister for his answers so far, may I press him on the last point mentioned? After the local authorities and the other bodies involved submit their findings and the Government come forward with proposals, will consideration be given as a matter of urgency to making the powers mandatory and not optional, since so far only 17 local authorities in the whole of England and Wales have taken out control orders?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I shall take the point on board and of course pass it to my right honourable friend. But the answers that I have given so far make me rather doubt that the outcome will be quite as the noble Lord would wish.