HC Deb 03 November 1986 vol 103 cc737-9

Lords amendment: No. 36, in page 24, leave out lines 35 to 37 and insert—

"Certification of fitness for purposes of s. 56B

56C. —(1) An approved body having an interest in a dwelling-house which it proposes to let on an assured tenancy may—

  1. (a) apply in writing to the local housing authority for a certificate that the dwelling-house is fit for human habitation, or
  2. (b) submit to the local housing authority a list of works which it proposes to carry out to the dwelling-house with a request in writing for the authority's opinion whether the dwelling-house would, after the execution of the works, be fit for human habitation; and the authority shall as soon as may be after receiving the application or request, and upon payment of such reasonable fee, as they may determine, take the matter into consideration.
(2) If the authority are of opinion that the dwelling-house is fit for human habitation, they shall give the approved body a certificate to that effect. (3) If the authority are of opinion that the dwelling-house will be fit for human habitation after the execution of the proposed works, they shall inform the approved body that they are of that opinion. (4) In any other case, the authority shall give the approved body a list of the works which in their opinion are required to make the dwelling-house fit for human habitation. (5) Where the authority have responded in accordance with subsection (3) or (4) and the works in question have been executed to their satisfaction, they shall, if the approved body applies in writing, and upon payment of such reasonable fee as the authority may determine, give the body a certificate that the dwelling-house is fit for human habitation. (6) For the purpose of determining whether the condition in section 56B(1)(b) was satisfied in any case (fitness of dwelling-house on relevant date), but not for any other purpose, a certificate given under this section is conclusive evidence that the dwelling-house was fit for human habitation on the date on which the certificate was given. (7) In this section 'the local housing authority' has the same meaning as in the Housing Act 1985.

Fitness for human habitation 56D. In determining for any of the purposes of section 56B or 56C whether a dwelling-house is, or would be, fit for human habitation, regard shall be had to its condition in respect of the following matters—

and the dwelling-house shall be deemed to be unfit only if it is, or would he, so far defective in one or more of those matters as to be not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.". (3) In section 57 of the Housing Act 1980 (effect of interest of landlord ceasing to belong to approved body), in subsections (1) and (2) for "section 56(3)(a)" substitute "section 56(1)(b)".

Mr. John Patten

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 37 and 39.

Mr. Rooker

The phrase "fit for human habitation" appears throughout the new clauses. I understand that there is no change in the fitness standards as enumerated in 56D. Does "fit for human habitation" mean the same

Mr. John Patten

Good heavens, I am searching for words here. We have not altered the standard—that is absolutely correct. However, I must elaborate on this point because it is extremely important and I may have to return to it for some little time.

We have not altered the standard. When our proposals to extend the assured tenancy scheme were first introduced in Committee, the standard chosen was the fitness standard to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referred. I believe that my memory serves me right and that it is contained in section 604 of the Housing Act 1985. The Opposition did not object to that then, as far as I can recall from the debates. Although the standard is now stated in great detail in the Bill, it remains, effectively, the same as the standard which appeared before us in Committee.

Section 604 of the Housing Act 1985 refers to fitness for human habitation as: repair, stability, freedom from damp, internal arrangement, natural lighting, ventilation, water supply, drainage and sanitary conveniences, facilities for the preparation and cooking of food and for the disposal of waste water. That relates only to the fitness standard, which is not the same as "in good repair". We intend to deal with the important issue of good repair, after due consultation with local authorities, by the application of a prescribed amount. We have consulted about the proposition; on that the prescribed amount should be £5,000 in London and £4,000 in the rest of England and Wales. I emphasise that that consultation is an extremely important exercise, which will lead to tests of fitness and also to places being in good repair before they are let under the approved tenancy scheme. I have already written to the hon. Member for Perry Barr explaining why we propose those levels and the basis on which we have decided to consult.

I should reiterate—and the words are beginning to come back to me now—that there is no objective test of fitness for human habitation. In the Housing Act 1985, we tried to be as objective as possible. Nor is there an objective test for what is "good repair". There is an element of subjectivity. We tried to achieve a reasonable level through the application of the prescribed amounts, on which I intend to consult.

Mr. Rooker

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is not the place to discuss the Minister's consultation on prescribed amounts, although I repeat what I said in Committee, that the Minister has set these amounts at too low a level. Explicit in the assured tenancy scheme is the fact that the landlord is out to get the market rent.

My hon. Friends and I have discussed what is "fit for human habitation". It is about the lowest of the low. A house fit for human habitation may lack basic amenities; it is still fit without hot or cold water. It still meets the fitness standards—crazy though that may seem. It would be difficult for landlords to obtain a market rent under assured tenancies if they operated at the lowest possible level.

I ask only whether there is a difference between "fitness for human habitation" and "in good repair". The difference is the wrong way. Landlords participating within the scheme—which has the Opposition's support with the caveats which I established in Committee—had better beware of that.

Mr. Patten

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tossing me a challenge to try to describe the difference between "fit for human habitation" and "in good repair". He should be reassured by two things. First, no landlord could let tenancies successfully under the assured tenancy scheme with the rentals he would seek to attract if the property was unfit for human habitation and/or not in good repair. Secondly, before any landlord was able to let such property, he would have to seek registration from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If at any stage it was clear that he was not providing accommodation of a suitable standard, that registration could be withdrawn. Registration is debatable in the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 37 to 39 agreed to.

Back to
Forward to