HC Deb 29 April 1996 vol 276 cc830-6

'1.— After section 353 of the Housing Act 1985 insert— 353A.—(1) It is the duty of the person having control of a house in multiple occupation, and of the person managing it, where the house contains a gas appliance or any installation pipework, chimney or flue, to ensure that a certificate showing safe installation, maintenance and chimney and flue cleaning shall be given to the tenant a reasonable time before he signs the tenancy agreement and every twelve months thereafter during the term of that tenancy. (2) The aforesaid certificate shall specify the name, address and, where it is gas work, the CORGI registration number of the person who did the relevant work and the date the work was don.".'.—[Mrs. Maddock.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Maddock

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would impose a duty on landlords of houses in multiple occupation to ensure that any gas appliances in properties let by them are safely installed and annually maintained. The clause would also apply to other appliances which use any fuels that are liable to produce carbon monoxide. It would also impose a duty on landlords to ensure that pipework, chimneys, flues and so on are maintained safely.

The tragic consequences of unsafe gas heaters were highlighted just last week, when a landlord from Hull was convicted of manslaughter for failing to deal with dangerous appliances which eventually caused the death of his tenant. Some people are concerned that landlords merely pay a fine when they are responsible for the death of their tenants. Officially, nearly 30 people a year in the United Kingdom die of carbon monoxide poisoning, but most experts agree that the true figure is much higher—perhaps hundreds or even thousands.

Part of the problem is the difficulty of recognising carbon monoxide poisoning for what it is. Even general practitioners find diagnosis difficult, and have sometimes treated victims and then sent them home, where they have subsequently died because the faulty appliance in question continues to give off its poison. That is why we need to highlight the problem and make sure that more people know more about it. Most incidents happen in the home, and not just in houses in multiple occupation, but this legislation gives us an opportunity to look at what happens in HMOs as a result of poorly maintained and installed gas cookers, boilers, heating appliances and associated fittings.

Since 1994, landlords have been obliged by law to have annual safety checks carried out by gas installers registered with the Council of Registered Gas Installers. The evidence shows, however, that tenants are not aware of that requirement; and that many landlords are not fulfilling their responsibilities. Twelve months after the requirement was introduced, Which? magazine surveyed 103 tenants in privately rented properties containing gas appliances, and found that almost two thirds of them said that no servicing or inspection had been done, a third of them having been resident in the properties for more than 12 months. As the magazine observed, These figures suggest that many private landlords are ignoring—or are unaware of—the new gas-safety check laws, and a significant number of tenants are being put at risk". A particularly vulnerable group are students, many of whom live in the private rented sector. They tend to move in and out of it fairly often, and perhaps do not have the time to check with their landlords whether their gas fires have been inspected. It is therefore important to put the onus on landlords to provide a certificate, and to renew it every 12 months. That is the purpose of the new clause. Tenants are already legally entitled to ask for evidence of inspection, but we should require landlords to give the evidence to the tenants anyway. Many tenants are understandably reluctant to press landlords for these certificates, which is why the new clause is so important.

I realise that this may prove tricky for the Government, and I know that they are looking into the whole matter to find ways of improving the current legislation. This Bill, however, gives us a golden opportunity to ensure that more people know about the problem, to improve tenants' rights and to make landlords face up to their responsibilities. A great deal of publicity attended the case of Tracy Murphy who died in Hull. Prosecutions are often brought by the Health and Safety Executive, and only fines are imposed—sometimes written off as business expenses. But human lives are at stake and we owe it to those who have lost their lives to ensure that it does not happen again.

I have figures to show how often the problem arises in houses in multiple occupation. Gas was responsible for seven deaths last year; solid fuel, also covered by the new clause, caused four deaths. Butane caused one, and another was attributed to an unknown cause. Of those fatalities, three took place in people's own homes, four probably did, but three were in rented accommodation. Meanwhile, 47 per cent. of near misses were connected with gas, and there were far more such incidents in rented accommodation than in homes lived in by the owners. Now we have a real chance to do something about that.

I realise that the Minister may not be in a position to give us a commitment today. I know that he is consulting on the matter, but I hope that he will at least look at ways of incorporating in housing legislation and legislation covering HMOs a provision that will make it the responsibility of landlords to provide a certificate. He would find support on both sides of the House for such a proposal. I look forward to hearing his comments on what I believe is a useful way of dealing with a problem that has given rise to so many tragic reports in the press in recent weeks.

Mr. David Martin (Portsmouth, South)

I have some sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) and with her new clause. Those of us with constituencies which include many people living in multi-occupation property—especially students—well know the fears surrounding this issue. Those fears are well known to me, as a parent whose oldest child will in due course go off to university and find herself in such accommodation. Students are particularly vulnerable because their occupation is short term and because of their high turnover rate. That means that they cannot know when the appliance that they are using, or the fuse that serves it, was last inspected and passed as safe.

The hon. Member for Christchurch is therefore right, at a time when the Government are examining the matter, to urge the Minister to say something about the state of play. How are the Government's investigations going? What action do they propose to take to allay some of these fears?

A certificate on its own is not enough. There should be a notice attached or near to an appliance stating when it was last checked and found safe. There should be a sign near a flue stating when it was last swept and rendered safe. After all, the same has been required for fire appliances over the years. Fire appliances can remain in the same place for ages, which is why there must be written notices near them saying when they were last inspected to the satisfaction of the relevant expert. Gas appliances, flues and their fittings should definitely be the subject of a requirement to produce evidence of their continuing safety, to protect those whose short-term occupation of such accommodation puts them at risk.

Mr. Sutcliffe

I concur with the last two contributions, although I am slightly surprised at the need to introduce this idea in this format. Admittedly, the Government are looking into the issue, but it has been with us for quite some time.

I know that British Gas produced a video about carbon monoxide poisoning which was aimed particularly at students. I hope that the Minister will include universities in his investigation as accommodation officers often encourage private landlords to house some of their student population. That applies particularly to students from abroad—at Bradford university, for instance. Many of the houses in which students find themselves contain appliances that have not been properly checked. Before any tenancy agreement is signed, it should be a prerequisite that satisfactory certificates of safety be produced; that is only common sense. Furthermore, that requirement should be included on the face of the Bill.

In my authority, environmental health officers cannot get around all the houses in multiple occupation for checks because there are simply too many. The problem is addressed only when a tragedy happens, such as that in Hull. That case involved a negligent landlord who was imprisoned, but many people feel aggrieved that he had committed offence after offence. How long will it be before we can put such matters right? The Government push people towards the private rented sector, so they have a responsibility to ensure that people are in a safe environment. British Gas is aware of the position and, as I mentioned, it has made a video.

I hope that the Minister will not take too much time to investigate the problem. New clause 4 sets out an easy and straightforward way to deal with the issue in the short term and I hope that we shall see some quick action. Concern has been expressed not only by student unions, but by other vulnerable groups. For example, single-parent families move into accommodation because of the low cost and the appliances have not been checked. I hope that the Minister has listened to what has been said and will support the spirit of new clause 4.

7.30 pm
Mr. Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield)

I will not detain the House for long. I wish to thank the Minister because when we discussed fire regulations and other areas covered by new clause 4 I raised the question of the means of escape order and whether the Bill would introduce an inconsistency on means of escape orders. That point is relevant to our debate today. The Minister promised to write to me about that subject and I am grateful that he did so.

I wish to clarify with the Minister what he said in that letter, because it is important that we get it on the record. As I understand it, the Minister has said that there will still be an exclusion in the means of escape orders for houses with fewer than three storeys. I have some reservations about that, but I wish to clarify the position. Beyond that, the good news—if I understand the Minister's comments correctly—is that there will he less disparity between the two schemes in the criteria governing the inclusion of houses than was originally proposed.

The Minister's letter stated: our proposal at present is to cover all HMOs which might be subject to registration as described in clause 62". I wish to clarify that he means that there will be no contradiction between regulations relating to means of escape orders and those relating to houses in multiple occupation covered by the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I having a little difficulty relating his comments to new clause 4. They seem more relevant to new clause 9. Perhaps I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Burden

I might have been able to raise the point on both new clauses, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I raised it at this point because new clause 4 deals with the safety of gas fires. The means of escape order specifically relates to fire regulations—

Mrs. Maddock

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burden

I should like to answer you first, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When we discuss new clause 9, I intend to raise other issues about licensing schemes. The means of escape order is specifically about fire regulations. I do not know whether that clarification will help.

Mrs. Maddock

The hon. Gentleman could raise the point on Government amendment No. 56 when we come to it. I tabled an amendment to take out the word "knowingly-. The Government agreed to take my amendment away and rewrite it. They have brought it back exactly the same and I commend their rewriting.

Mr. Burden

The point on which I seek clarification is essentially simple. I think that the Minister has clarified it in writing, but I wish to put it on the record. My point is that if a house is covered by the registration criteria in the Bill, the same property should be covered by means of escape orders; there should be no contradiction between the two schemes. If the Minister can give that clarification I shall be content.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison)

I will deal later, if I may, with the point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) about fire escapes. I wish to deal first with the important contribution by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock).

Gas safety is a very important subject and I have much sympathy with the underlying concern expressed by the hon. Lady about promoting safety. I also understand the concerns expressed by other hon. Members in the course of the debate, which has been good, if short. I understand the concerns about students felt by parents of children going to university. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) made an important point, which was echoed by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) as it affects his constituency, Bradford university and Bradford students.

I believe that it will be helpful if I deal in a little detail with the regulations that concern gas safety, to which the hon. Member for Christchurch adverted. Duties on landlords to provide safe gas installations in rented accommodation are properly matters for the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1994. Those regulations require landlords, including landlords of houses in multiple occupation, to maintain gas appliances, flues and installation pipework in a safe condition; to arrange annual safety checks of appliances and flues using a CORGI-registered gas installer; and to provide records of those checks when tenants ask for them. The record must include the date of an inspection, the defects identified and any remedial action taken. Those requirements are compulsory for all landlords who rent property that comes within the scope of the regulations.

Managers of HMOs are also required by the management regulations to keep gas supply installations, and those for space and water heating, in good repair and working order. Environmental health officers, who enforce the management regulations, have been told to inform the Health and Safety Executive if they suspect that the gas safety regulations have been breached.

I naturally share the desire of the hon. Member for Christchurch to give tenants the information that they need to avoid potential death traps. The primary aim of the regulations is to reduce gas-related carbon monoxide poisoning from dangerous gas fittings and blocked flues which, as the hon. Lady said, account for nearly 30 tragic deaths every year.

The hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned the recent, tragic case in Hull. I believe that the landlord in question had earlier been prosecuted by the Health and Safety Commission and he was also prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service. I understand that he was convicted of manslaughter—a criminal conviction, of course—and received a suspended sentence of 18 months imprisonment. The judge gave reasons why the sentence was suspended and said that an immediate term of imprisonment would be the likely outcome in other cases. That illustrates the serious manner in which the courts regard what is a serious offence. I am sure that anyone who has listened to the debate will have heard that serious approach echoed by the hon. Members who have contributed.

Many of the deaths have occurred in rented accommodation, such as HMOs, and I recognise the pressure, reflected in new clause 4, for a change in the law so that landlords are either required to supply evidence of annual safety checks without tenants first asking for it, or are required to display such evidence prominently in rented accommodation.

As I have indicated, the 1994 regulations already require information about checks to be produced to tenants on request, and the Health and Safety Commission has gone to great lengths to publicise how the law protects tenants and to ensure that they are aware of their rights. I understand that the Health and Safety Commission has also been in touch with the Government's chief medical officer, who has issued a circular to all general practitioners about the symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning. The Health and Safety Commission is very aware of the importance of the subject.

Changes to the rights that I have described are properly matters on which the Commission would first need to advise Ministers. I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Member for Christchurch that the Commission has a review of the 1994 regulations in hand and that that review will consider the case for a possible new duty on landlords requiring them to display evidence of an annual gas safety check in a prominent position.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

What is the time scale for the review?

Mr. Clappison

That was to be my next point. I understand that the HSC will be producing a consultative document by March 1997 and that it intends to produce new regulations possibly by May or June 1997.

Mr. David Martin

Will my hon. Friend speed up that process? Talking about consultative documents makes it sound like next year or the year after that. Perhaps he will give the commission a kick where it hurts.

Mr. Clappison

My hon. Friend, too, has the happy knack of anticipating my next remark. I was about to assure the House that in view of the concern expressed in the debate I intend to contact the commission to draw its attention, first, to the seriousness with which the House regards the subject and the requirement that an advertisement be introduced and, secondly, to the concern that has been expressed about the time scale. I will draw the commission's attention to the debate. Indeed, I am sure that it would want to be aware of it. I shall ensure that the points made in the debate are reflected upon by the commission.

I hope that on the basis of my assurances the hon. Member for Christchurch will find it possible to consider seeking leave to withdraw the motion.

Mrs. Maddock

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I was slightly more patient than some hon. Members in letting him respond to the debate. I hope that he will push the Health and Safety Commission to quicken its response.

Carbon monoxide poisoning is extremely sinister. We know that carbon monoxide is odourless and colourless, so it cannot be seen. There is a great lack of knowledge. I could go into the reasons why that is so, not least the shortcomings of science education, but I am sure that I would be ruled out of order.

The new clause is simple, but its implementation would solve many problems. I understand that if a review is taking place it is only right that we should wait until we hear what has happened, but I should not have been happy to wait until 1997. Too many people would be lost between now and then.

Mr. Bennett

Does the hon. Lady accept that if the Government had any concern about these matters they could complete the process by September before students sign on for the next term?

Mrs. Maddock

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and one that I hope the Minister will take on board.

It is important to help those tenants who may not want to push their landlords on these safety measures. The landlord may have told them, "It's all right." I regret that we are moving towards a time when more people will be living in temporary accommodation. They will be moving from time to time. When people do not have direct responsibility and they do not want aggravation with the landlord, they may not be happy to take action. It is important to understand that aspect and to ensure that it is the landlord's duty to provide a certificate.

Nevertheless, having listened carefully to the Minister, I do not intend to press the new clause to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Does the hon. Lady wish to withdraw the new clause?

Mrs. Maddock

If it makes the procedure of the House easier, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The choice rests with the hon. Member.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to