MEANING OF "HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION" (Hansard, 10 May 2002)

Dr. Desmond Turner
I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 31, leave out from "provision;" to end of line 34 and insert— '(c) shall be made by statutory instrument; and (d) shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.".'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 4, in page 4, leave out lines 8 to 10 and insert— '(3) But a registration scheme must apply to every house in multiple occupation in the authority's district, which

(a) consists of more than two storeys, for which purpose an attic or basement shall be considered a storey unless used solely for purposes other than accommodation, or

(b) is occupied by more than four adults.'. In addition, I must advise the House that, following representations by the Member in charge of the Bill and the Members who have tabled the amendments, Mr. Speaker has agreed that the following starred amendments should also be taken with this group: No. 17, in clause 4, page 4, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert—

'(6) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'. No. 18, in clause 5, page 5, leave out lines 26 to 28 and insert— '(9) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'. No. 19, in clause 6, page 6, leave out lines 4 to 6 and insert— '(1D) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.

Dr. Turner
It has always been our intention in dealing with the section of the Bill relating to houses in multiple occupation to be as transparent as possible. To that end, the Second Reading version of the Bill referred to regulations needing to be made by positive resolution. That was changed by Government amendments in Committee to resolution by annulment, which we felt did not give adequate opportunity for scrutiny, given that serious issues were involved. After all, I am sure that we have all sat on enough statutory instrument Committees and participated in attempts to break the four-minute meeting barrier to know that the normal method of resolution by annulment results in very little scrutiny indeed, whereas if it is done by positive resolution, it is open to inspection and proper scrutiny by the whole House.
Given the weight of legislation that these regulations will cover, we felt that this proposal was fair to landlords, to tenants who live in houses in multiple occupation and to Parliament. I am happy to say that, when I asked in Committee whether the Government would consider implementing the regulations by positive resolution, the response was sympathetic. Indeed, amendment No. 9
459 already provides for the regulations concerning clause 3, which deals with the definition of houses in multiple occupation, to be dealt with by affirmative resolution.
I had anticipated that there would be similar amendments to go with clauses 4, 5 and 6. Clause 4, in particular, concerns the level at which mandatory registration starts to bite. Amendment No. 4 replicates the words in our Second Reading draft defining the level at which, and above which, registration is mandatory—three or four more floors in occupation, and five or more tenants. That will now be subject to regulation rather than being dealt with in the Bill, but, along with many of my colleagues, I think that it should be subject to affirmative resolution, and open to scrutiny by the whole House.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) has tabled starred amendments to replace amendments to clauses 4, 5 and 6 that I had expected to be tabled but which unfortunately were not. I do not think it was a conspiracy—I always prefer the cock-up to the conspiracy theory. It was just one of those things, probably due to a genuine error or misunderstanding. Mr. Speaker has graciously allowed the starred amendments to be discussed, and I am happy to support them—as, I expect, will many other Members. I understand that the Department is content to follow the will of the House.
I urge the House to accept amendment No. 9, and amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19. I ask the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) not to press her amendments. I expect the issue to be taken up very firmly now that, hopefully, affirmative resolutions will apply to the regulations—and it is still my clear understanding that the level I have mentioned is the level at which mandatory registration starts to bite.

§ Sue Doughty
We pressed for the content of amendment No. 4 in Committee. We are very concerned about houses that are built vertically, and present a greater fire risk. However, we accept what we have been told about further consideration, and I intend to withdraw the amendment.

§ Sir Sydney Chapman
Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 are intended to rectify an accidental omission. Their wording is identical to some of the wording of amendment No. 9, which refers to clause 3. My amendments refer to clauses 4, 5 and 6.
The regulations will affect the interests of thousands of landlords and tenants. We think they should he subject to affirmative resolution, so that the House will have a chance to debate key matters—as opposed to matters of detail, which should be subject to negative resolution.
If I understand the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) correctly, I fully support his amendment, as he appears to be supporting mine.

§ Mr. Meacher
Once again I am glad to support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown.
On amendment No. 9, the Government propose that regulations under clause 3 should be made by affirmative rather than by negative resolution. I shall deal later in my speech with the point made by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) about regulations under clauses 4 to 6.
460 The effect of the change proposed in amendment No. 9 will be that both Houses would need to debate and vote on regulations prescribing the following definitions: what an HMO is in terms of the type of properties covered or excluded; what an HMO is in terms of those who occupy it—the number of households or family or other relationships involved; what is meant by "occupy" and such other matters as may need to be prescribed.
A power to make regulations is needed to define HMOs according to the types of properties to be included or excluded and the number of occupants and their relationships. We debated that extensively in Committee. The power in clause 3(3) is one of the means of ensuring consistency across registration schemes. At present there is not only uncertainty as to how the current definition based on households works, but—and we intend to address this—there is no flexibility in the law to ensure that adjustments can be made to achieve a legal definition that works. So in prescribing what an HMO is and what it is not, we need to define which types of property are judged to be HMOs and which are specifically excluded. The definition also has to have regard to those who occupy the properties. Definitions based on the concept of household and family relationships have been used in primary legislation, but they have not been without their critics. There is therefore a need for the flexibility in establishing definitions that secondary legislation provides.
A power such as that in clause 3 for the Secretary of State to say which HMOs must be included in any registration scheme is crucial to the operation of the registration scheme. It is not unreasonable that after public consultation on what is proposed by way of regulation Parliament should have its say.
Following representations in Committee, where there were extensive discussions, the Government decided to table an amendment that would make regulations under clause 3 subject to affirmative resolution. However it is not intended that regulations under clauses 4, 5 and 6 should be subject to affirmative resolution and, in answer to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, I shall make clear why.
Affirmative resolution procedure is rarely used. It is a special provision for a special case. The regulations to be made under section 345 of the Housing Act 1985 are of fundamental importance because they determine the scope of the legislation in order to avoid undue complexity. They allow a substantial amount of discretion to the Secretary of State in determining what an HMO is as well as in conferring exemptions. In our view, other regulation-making powers in part 3 of the Bill are not comparable as they relate to matters which are not subject to any such procedure in the current legislation. For instance, the drawing of the line between properties that can be made subject to registration—with and without confirmation by the Secretary of State—is not, under section 346B of the 1985 Act, currently a matter for parliamentary scrutiny in any form. In fact, the Bill extends the scope of parliamentary scrutiny by making the drawing of that line subject to the negative resolution procedure. Regulations will be put before both Houses, and if prayed against, a debate can take place.
I hope that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) is satisfied with that explanation. The Government have to strike a balance between the correct use of parliamentary time, and ensuring adequate 461 and proper parliamentary accountability. The Government are concerned that an undue amount of parliamentary time should not be expended debating highly detailed regulations that prescribe the regime for the registration of HMOs. The amendments would bring within parliamentary scrutiny matters not currently considered by Parliament. The negative resolution procedure allows regulations to be prayed against by the Opposition or by any hon. Member, and then debated, and we believe that to be adequate.
Following representations made in Committee, the Government have decided to propose in new clause 2, which we have already debated, that regulations under clause 3 be subject to affirmative resolution. We do not believe that a good case exists for regulations under clauses 4, 5 and 6 being so subject, but as was rightly pointed out, I am prepared to listen to the view of the House on this matter, and to other representations. It is a question not of defeating the Government, but of Parliament deciding in a mature and sensible way how much detail it wants to go into in insisting that a parliamentary debate take place.
On amendment No. 4, the Government are most concerned about HMOs that constitute a clear risk to the health and safety of their occupants. As I said in Committee, properties with three or more storeys, and which are occupied by more than four adults, present the greatest risks, particularly in terms of fire and overcrowding. Past Government-commissioned research found that multiple occupancy of two-storey properties involved no greater risk of fire than did occupancy by a single family. As I also said in Committee, the Government intend that local authorities will be responsible for ensuring that the most vulnerable HMOs in their district meet basic health, safety and management standards. We will prescribe those HMOs to which that duty will apply, but we also intend that local authorities will have discretionary powers to register HMOs in their district that do not fall within the scope of this mandatory scheme.
The matter was raised in Committee and debated thoroughly, and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable)—he is not here today—withdrew his amendment. If accepted. it would have had the same effect as Government amendment No. 9, which is why we are debating that amendment today. The English house condition survey and the Entec report, commissioned in 1998, clearly showed that houses occupied by more than four people, and which consist of three or more storeys, are at greatest risk from poor standards, overcrowding and fire. Smaller, two-storey houses in multiple occupation tend not to be in any worse a condition than those in single occupation. We intend to allow local authorities to extend registration to smaller HMOs if they see fit, but we do not believe that a pressing need exists for mandatory registration of such properties. For those reasons, I hope that the House will reject the relevant amendments.

§ Mr. Sayeed
I intend to be brief, because the next Bill is the Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire). I am anxious to make progress on that valuable Bill, so I shall write to the Minister on some of the points that I had intended to raise on the operation of HMOs and the effect on private landlords.
462 We need the positive resolution procedure for the powers in clauses 4, 5 and 6, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) proposed. I hope that, given all the voices that have supported that aim, the Minister will eventually feel able also to support it. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) that he does not intend to press the matter to a Division, so that we can make progress.

§ Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon)
My right hon. Friend the Minister has his approach to affirmative and negative resolutions back to front. I object to his view of the need for affirmative resolution in relation to clause 3, but not for clause 5. The meat of the Bill is not so much the definition of HMOs but the registration scheme that will police them. It is bizarre that, if my right hon. Friend gets his way, we will have an affirmative resolution to define an HMO, but not to define what should be in the scheme. In the end, the scheme could include far less than the definition. He is trying to have his cake and eat it.
A better approach would be to look at the issue the other way round. Indeed, I feel so strongly about that that I shall seek to divide the House on the point. My right hon. Friend said that the affirmative procedure is rarely used and should be used only in special cases. In this case. the special case is not the definition of an HMO but the scheme of registration, because the whole policing of the Bill will revolve around that. It is much more important to get that right than to get the global definition right. The definition in the registration scheme may be more restrictive than the overall definition under clause 3.
I shall illustrate my argument with reference to amendment No. 4, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, although I understand that they will not press that amendment. When my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) spoke on amendment No. 9, he said that the regulations would follow the lines set out in amendment No.4, which causes me some concern. Before becoming a Member of Parliament, I was a personal injury lawyer. I suppose that I still am, in that I have a practice certificate, although I am not taking any cases. For some 17 years, I was the solicitor for the Fire Brigades Union and I came across many cases involving HMOs. I am concerned that the definition proposed in amendment No. 4 is too restrictive and easily avoidable by unscrupulous landlords.
Amendment No. 4 gives a definition of an HMO that includes the words: unless used solely for purposes other than accommodation". I fear that that phrase means that when an unscrupulous landlord knows that the local authority inspector is coming round, he can easily take the bed out and put a load of old furniture into the basement or loft. After the inspector goes, the furniture is brought back and the bed comes out again. Indeed, there might even be a folding bed that goes into a wardrobe and is therefore disguised.
I am also concerned about the reference to four adults in amendment No. 4. A small house with more than one storey—or more than the two storeys referred to in the amendment—could have three bedsits. If there are four adults or two couples in a house, that is fair enough, but what happens when the adults live separately in bedsits, 463 often in extremely poor accommodation? That is why we need to consider the whole issue of HMOs and not just in the context of home energy conservation.

§ Mr. Stephen McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green)
Is the essence of my hon. Friend's argument that unless the point is clearly defined by the Secretary of State, it will be left to the discretion of local authorities and, although they will appear to be constrained by a property having two storeys, including a basement or an attic, there will be no provision for other types of accommodation? There was a recent example in Birmingham—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is embarking on a speech rather than making an intervention. [Interruption.] Order.

§ Mr. Dismore
I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I disagree with him and hope to explain why later in my remarks. It is important to preserve the discretion of local authorities, yet within an overall framework. There needs to be a degree of regulation of houses in multiple occupation, but I suspect that a Bill such as this is not the best way of protecting people living in HMOs. It is in that context that I make my remarks.
Amendment No. 4, which I understand will not be pressed to a vote, is far too restrictive. Effectively, no other registration scheme would be permissible. I very much hope that the amendment will not be pressed, because it is important for the Secretary of State to have the discretion to describe properties in regulations.
On the affirmative and negative resolution procedure, I take exception again to amendment No. 17. I am concerned that if we become too prescriptive, perhaps through the affirmative resolution procedure, we could end up removing the discretion of local authorities to make provision for the housing in their area. I imagine that the sort of scenario that I have described would be of no concern in certain areas of the country but of great concern in others. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will accept that regulations must be as flexible as possible to allow local authorities to have discretion to meet the circumstances in their area.
Of course, in some local authorities, the question of HMOs does not arise because there are very few, and those that exist are luxury accommodation. However, in parts of the inner city and, indeed, in parts of my constituency, HMOs are important in providing accommodation. Because of the large amount of work they create, they are a headache for the various enforcement authorities—the fire service, local authorities and anyone to do with the administration of housing welfare rights.
I am afraid that I am not with the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) on amendment No. 17. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it would be far more suitable for that proposal to be dealt with through the negative resolution procedure.
1.45 pm
However, I think that the hon. Gentleman is right about clause 5 and that my right hon. Friend is wrong. The meat of the measure is in the registration scheme that will be 464 administered by local authorities. Clause 5 deals with model schemes and their confirmation. It is important that those schemes be properly debated because they will form the template from which local authorities will work.
The local authorities will have to start from somewhere, and I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the debate should be not about trying to take away their discretion but about setting an acceptable framework that has been properly considered by Parliament. The same point applies to the confirmation of the schemes. I think that he may have his affirmatives and negatives the wrong way round.
I agree in part with the proposals of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet—50 per cent., but 50 per cent. opposition. We should not invoke the affirmative resolution procedure for clauses 3 and 4, but there is a case for it on clause 5. That would achieve the best balance by ensuring that the basic template for local authorities is fully debated and discussed in the House, while allowing local authorities to make their own schemes without too much interference from this place. I am a great believer in allowing local authorities to get on with the job and I am concerned that the Government's approach would prevent that.

§ Sir Sydney Chapman
By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I find myself in some difficulty. I genuinely did not intend to open up a disagreement between Government Front and Back Benchers, but I am persuaded by the Minister's comments. The telling point is that the issues raised by my amendments could be debated by the House on a negative resolution, so I shall not press them to a vote.
Amendment No. 18 apparently meets with the approbation of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). He is my near neighbour and I want to live in comfort with him, so I shall leave that spat between him and the Minister. I shall not press amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19.

§ Mr. Meacher
With the leave of the House, I shall respond to some of the interesting points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). He makes a strong argument for further consideration and it is unfortunate that there is not more time to go into the question of the registration of HMOs under part 3. Perhaps we shall be able to do so at a later stage.
Amendment No. 4 raises the issue of whether registration should apply to two or three-storey buildings with at least four occupants. Much depends on the condition of the buildings and the risks involved. As I said earlier, the English house condition survey revealed that 20 per cent. of bedsit and self-contained, flat-type HMOs failed to meet minimum standards of fitness for human habitation. Those standards require that the property should be structurally sound, free from disrepair and damp, have adequate heating, lighting and ventilation, and have satisfactory cooking, washing and toilet facilities.
Many properties failed to meet the test because they were in disrepair or lacked satisfactory heating. Those basic standards apply to all dwellings and the Government consider it unacceptable that a large proportion of the private rented sector does not even meet the minimum requirements. 465 Additional risks to health and safety arise from the multiple occupation of properties. One of them is, obviously, the risk from fire. The survey revealed that a staggering and worrying 80 per cent. of houses occupied as bedsits lacked adequate means of escape from fire and other fire precautions.
Following that survey, the Department commissioned Entec Ltd. to research the risk from fire in HMOs. That is relevant to the thrust of amendment No. 4 and whether registration should apply to two-storey buildings, or indeed one-storey buildings. That report was published in 1998 and it identified several factors which influenced the risk from fire in such properties. Those included the number of occupants of the building, as I have already said, and the number of storeys—HMOs of three or more pose a significantly higher risk, as do properties housing dependent and vulnerable people.
The internal design and layout of HMOs can also significantly increase the risk, such as the degree of self-containment, the units of accommodation and the number of escapes and their precise location. The quality of management standards was also found to be an important factor in determining the significance of the risk.
The Government took into account the Entec survey and the earlier 1998 survey in deciding their response to amendment No. 4.

§ Mr. Dismore
My right hon. Friend is going into considerable detail about the sort of buildings concerned. Is he suggesting that that level of detail is appropriate for the affirmative resolution procedure?

§ Mr. Meacher
The affirmative resolution procedure is another matter. I was addressing my remarks to amendment No. 4, which concerns whether registration should apply only to three and four-storey buildings that have at least four occupants or to two-storey buildings that have at least four occupants. There is no authoritative way of deciding that, except by looking at the design of HMOs, their distribution, the number of particular kinds and the number of occupants—the information that we have according to the number of storeys. I am sorry if I gave the impression of going into a lot of detail, but that is why I did so.
The risk of death or injury from fire varies significantly, as all the factors interact differently in each case. However, Entec concluded that in several types of HMOs, the risk of death or injury from fire was significantly higher than in houses of single occupation, which is probably hardly surprising. It found, for example, that an occupant in a house comprised of bedsits was six times more likely to die as a result of fire than adults living in an ordinary house. That raises the question dealt with by amendment No. 4 as to whether registration should also apply to two-storey buildings, which may well contain a number of bedsits.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that state of affairs is not simply unacceptable but a matter of great concern. However, other problems are associated with multi-occupation. Often those properties are overcrowded because they have inadequate facilities to meet the health and welfare of their occupants, and it is not uncommon in shared houses and bedsit-type HMOs to find up to 10 people sharing one bath, one WC and one kitchen.
466 The English house condition survey revealed that more than 40 per cent. of houses occupied as bedsits had inadequate facilities for the occupants. It referred to a lack of adequate cooking, bathing and toilet facilities.
Overcrowding is a major problem in some HMOs. Rooms often do not meet minimum space standards for human habitation, and in areas of high demand for housing it is not uncommon for three or more people to live, cook and sleep in a single room. I agree that we should take firm action to ensure that people are properly protected, and that the registration system is adequate for the purpose.

§ Mr. McCabe
I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive my ignorance, but could he explain to me what would happen in the case of single-storey extensions where there is multiple occupation? I am thinking of a garage that has been extended and used for accommodation.

§ Mr. Meacher
That is the type of problem that I mean. Unfortunately, HMOs are extremely varied. There are variations in the number of storeys, the number of occupants and the design. My hon. Friend gave one example. How can we ensure adequate protection for people who live, eat and sleep in buildings such as he referred to through the registration of HMOs? My concern is about whether amendment No. 4 will be adequate for that purpose.

§ Mr. Clifton-Brown
The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) have raised the important issue of enforcement. Many HMOs have transient populations, and they may be licensed for a certain level of occupation, but as soon as the local authority officer has granted a licence, the previous over-occupancy persists. How will these regulations, excellent though they are, be enforced?

§ Mr. Meacher
I am pleased to respond to that important point, because that is what part 3 and these amendments are about. The hon. Gentleman was not on the Committee. His hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) was eloquent on this issue. He made it perfectly clear that he was speaking on behalf of landlords. Of course, their interests must be properly reflected.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that the first and prime requirement must be the health and safety of occupants, and the regulations must be effectively enforceable. There is no simple answer to his question about how to deal with a transient population, and ensure that people who are there one day and leave a few nights later are adequately protected. We can only ensure that the building that they occupy falls within the registration system, and that it is regulated by the local authority, so that even if there is a transient population, any persons who occupy that building or those rooms are properly protected from fire, overcrowding and any other risks.
We believe that the pressing need for the better regulation of HMOs will be achieved by the mandatory licensing of such properties. We are committed to introducing such a scheme as soon as parliamentary time is available to produce legislation to achieve that. 467 The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), made it clear that the Government had in mind a much wider Bill along those lines, and that they regarded part 3 of this Bill as a useful paving measure that would lead the way towards a much more detailed licensing system for landlords and for the better registration of HMOs. We believe that the existing powers available to local authorities to register HMOs, and in what circumstance, need to be amended. There is a pressing need to review the definition of HMOs, which is what the Bill will achieve.
2 pm
Local authorities already have a wide range of powers available to them to tackle and control standards of HMOs—the exact point made by the hon. Member for Cotswold—through part 11 of the Housing Act 1985 and the regulations made under it. However—the hon. Gentleman was quite right to raise this point—experience has shown that these powers have not always been fully effective in ensuring that acceptable standards are met or maintained. Much of that is because the legislation dates back many years and reflects the conditions and technology prevailing at the time. Many of the buildings go back to Victorian times.
The legislation sets detailed and prescriptive requirements, but fails to provide the flexibility required to deal with other problems because building design and technologies have changed dramatically over the past 50 or 100 years. That has inevitably hampered local authorities in performing their duties under the legislation.
I accept that the Bill is not the correct vehicle for addressing these defects. The Government regard this as a useful paving measure for a much more dedicated and targeted measure that the DTLR intends to introduce. Obviously that will require a much more complex and detailed set of measures than can be accommodated in a private Member's Bill, and it can be covered by Government legislation. However, it is important that we get the Bill right, and that it is consistent with the Government's wider intentions along these lines.

§ Mr. Sayeed
So far, the Minister has spoken for 109 minutes during this debate. The only particular change taking place is the introduction of amendment (a) to amendment No. 11, which the Minister described as window dressing. Is it the Minister's intention to talk out this Bill because of what he described as only a piece of window dressing?

§ Mr. Meacher
That is a bit ripe coming from the hon. Gentleman, who indicated that, having succeeded in the vote, he wanted to be rid of this Bill and move on to others. He was dissimilating enough to suggest that the reason for wishing to dismiss the Bill was to provide time for my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermdine, West (Rachel Squire), whereas it is clear from the intervention of the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), that the Opposition's intention is to dismiss this Bill in order to have as much time as possible on the Pension Annuities (Amendment) Bill.
468 My concern is to ensure that the Bill is properly debated. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, contrary to his Back-Bench colleagues, does not seem to regard the registration of houses of multiple occupation and the risks to many vulnerable and defenceless people in them to be a matter for careful consideration. If he had applied himself to this matter and asked some serious questions, it would be another matter. He has just sat there twiddling his thumbs, waiting to get on to the next Bill. That is not a worthy way to present himself.

§ Mr. McCabe
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Before the Minister gives way to his hon. Friend, I ask him to concentrate on responding to the debate, rather than covering wider ground.

§ Mr. McCabe
I urge my hon. Friend not to stop debating the Bill and not to submit to the pressure. I want to know why he thinks that the affirmative resolution is necessary, particularly in relation to clause 3.

§ Mr. Meacher
On clause 3, I said that proposing the affirmative resolution procedure, which is used only rarely, is justified on a matter of sufficient importance, but not on one of a detailed or technical kind. I listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon said, but perhaps it is the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) who has his affirmatives and negatives the wrong way round. I think that he is partly right and partly wrong.
It is justified for clause 3, which raises the more general and serious issues, to be subject to the affirmative procedure, but it is reasonable to discuss to what parliamentary scrutiny the more detailed and technical issues under clauses 4 to 6 should be subject. Currently, they are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny at all, so proposing the negative resolution procedure gives the Opposition or any Member of the House, the opportunity for a debate. That is a fair balance between the two.

§ Mr. Dismore
rose—

§ Mr. Meacher
Does my hon. Friend disagree?

§ Mr. Dismore
I am concerned, because the registration scheme ultimately polices the Bill. People could face sanctions if they do not comply with it properly. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Turner) but that issue is far more important than the vague and woolly general definitions in clause 3. We must have proper scrutiny, as people may face penalties.

§ Mr. Meacher
I am not disagreeing about the importance of the penalties and sanctions that may rightly be brought to bear when landlords fail to meet standards. The issue is whether the matter should take up parliamentary time, because detailed scrutiny in both Houses would be required. Is that merited? I am suggesting not that there should not be adequate penalties, but that if there is a desire to discuss these matters, the House should have the opportunity to make such a demand. However, to lay that down as a requirement seems to us to go further than is strictly necessary. I hope 469 that my hon. Friend accepts that, although I take his point. I am prepared, without prejudice, to have another look at the matter.

§ Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North)
My right hon. Friend has alluded to section 11 of the Housing Act 1985 and to the powers of local authorities under that Act in relation to HMOs. He also alluded to the inadequacy of those powers. Will he recount for the House why the powers need to be superseded and why clauses 3 and 4 may be inadequate for that, thereby requiring further wide-scale legislation?

§ Mr. Meacher
The answer is that section 11 does not adequately deal with several issues relating to the registration and control of HMOs. For years if not decades, that has not been properly regulated. Obviously, there are powers under previous legislation that enable local authorities to go so far, but we believe that a major legislative overhaul is required. The Government propose to introduce such legislation, but that has been pre-empted—if that is the right word—by the Bill.
After discussions with the Bill's supporters, we made an agreement on part 3 that we believe to be consistent with our wider purposes, and we are happy for it to proceed on that basis. However, section 11 is an inadequate instrument for what is a very complex and difficult area.
The Bill would make one important change in respect of standards by amending section 348 of the 1985 Act so that a condition of the registration of a house will be that it meets minimum prescribed standards, including those relating to safety, energy efficiency and standards of fixtures, fittings and furnishings. If a house does not meet those standards, a local authority will be able to refuse to register it, unless steps are taken to require it to meet those standards. Therefore, the measure gives substantial powers to local authorities.
Another difficulty with the current legislation is that the control regime is based largely on local authority discretionary powers, a matter that is raised in regard to amendment No. 4. The existing power to require HMOs to be registered is discretionary, as is the power on the categories of HMOs to which a registration scheme will apply.
As a result, enforcement and the standards applied vary significantly across the country, a point to which the hon. Member for Cotswold rightly drew our attention. The Bill will deal with those anomalies by requiring all local authorities in England and Wales to adopt a registration scheme with control provisions for those HMOs most at risk.
The Bill provides that regulations will prescribe which HMOs will be covered by the mandatory registration scheme. Should we include two-storey buildings, or should we restrict the provision to three and four-storey buildings which have at least four occupants? We will informally consult on which descriptions of HMOs will be subject to mandatory legislation, but as I indicated in Committee, HMOs that are of three or more storeys and that are occupied by more than four people exhibit the characteristics with which we are most concerned, such as fire risk and overcrowding. That is the basis for amendment No. 4. That is where the greatest risk applies. The question for the House is whether it applies to 470 two-storey buildings with four people, or whether it is possible to draw a sensible dividing line between two and three storeys.
The Bill provides that local authorities will, at their discretion, be able to register smaller HMOs if they consider that necessary. Therefore, whatever the House may decide today, there would still be a discretion where a local authority believed that a two-storey building should be brought within the controls.
The Bill also provides that local authorities must adopt model and therefore uniform registration schemes in their districts. Again, that is important. If an authority wishes to vary the model scheme, it will only be able to do so with the approval of the Secretary of State. We believe that the use of model schemes will provide consistency across local authorities, which again is important. We do not think that there should be varying standards when one is talking about health and safety and overcrowding. That should apply in both the application of standards and their enforcement. We want to see even, balanced and proper enforcement across the country.
The measure will also reduce the amount of paperwork and ensure that fees are kept to a minimum. That is a less important issue but not a negligible one.
The existing definition of an HMO has been the subject of many debates; we had many in Committee. A number of grey areas have arisen. That has resulted in some properties that exhibit the characteristics of HMO accommodation not being within the definition. Precisely such a building configuration has been referred to.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The Minister is again straying rather wide of the amendments before the House. I would be grateful if he returned to them.

§ Mr. Meacher
I understand that point. I wanted to make it absolutely clear that the significance of the issue behind amendment No. 4 was understood. With your patience and kindness, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have managed to spell it out in full. I am glad to leave the case there.

§ Mr. Gardiner
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. We have covered the amendment very fully and the Minister has responded to the debate at great length, so I do not think that it would be appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to speak at this time.

Dr. Desmond Turner
The Minister outlined many of the reasons why use of the affirmative resolution procedure, as set out in the amendment, is so important. It is also extremely important to adopt starred amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19, to which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) spoke, to provide for positive resolutions in respect of the issues covered in clauses 4, 5 and 6.
We all know that houses in multiple occupation are an extremely complex matter. The question of definition alone has kept lawyers fat for years. It is important to have a definition that is not only foolproof as far as lawyers are concerned, but fair to landlords and tenants, so that everybody understands where they are. The question now 471 boils down to what constitutes a household; it has changed since Second Reading, when, as hon. Members will remember, it was based on there being more than two families. Households are the basis of the current definition.
We all know that problems have arisen in the courts because of unscrupulous landlords who are prepared to claim that a disparate group of people who have no mutual relationship whatever constitutes a single household. Thus, they will pretend that a four-storey Victorian tenement occupied by 12 students is a single household. Of course, that is blatant nonsense, but that is how the matter currently stands in the courts, which is unacceptable from everybody's point of view.
It is essential to ensure proper scrutiny of associated regulations. I pointed out to the Department the weakness on definition and said, "You'll have to define households, or you'll be back in the mire again." It must prescribe the relationships that constitute a household. As we all know, that is potentially a very sensitive issue. In relation to a married couple with children, the circumstances are clear, but the relationships of unmarried couples, same-sex couples and so on in cohabitation might be less so. Those matters need to be considered very carefully. They are potentially very sensitive.

§ Mr. Gardiner
I hope that my hon. Friend will take on board a point that I had hoped to make at greater length about an issue that is important in constituencies such as mine. In relation to an extended family nexus of asylum seekers, disproportionate work would be required of local authorities under the proposals for registration of households. Difficulties can arise when there is a tremendous influx of asylum seekers who are included in loose family configurations and often live in multiple occupation households. The turnover and mobility of such families can be so tremendously fast that a local authority would require far greater resources than are currently available to keep pace with the situation. Will my hon. Friend comment on that issue, although I am forbidden to do so at greater length?

Dr. Turner
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which emphasises the problem of the definition of an extended family and where to set its limits. It is only right and proper that such sensitive issues are scrutinised by the House.

§ Mr. Dismore
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) made an important point about minority communities. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) envisage that resolutions, whether affirmative or negative, would include, for example, a requirement on local authorities to ensure that the regulations are published in languages other than English so that minority communities can understand them?

Dr. Turner
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which underlines a point that is likely to be overlooked in an ordinary statutory instrument Committee, operating by resolution through annulment. Nine times out of 10, such Committees are trying to break the four-minute meeting record. Instead of scrutinising, 472 Committee members assume that officials have done it all. We are considering a range of issues that are too sensitive to be left to officials to bring to a Committee that will simply rubber-stamp them so that its members can get out of the Room as quickly as possible.
We have talked about problems that are associated with definition. They could keep lawyers going for a long time, but I do not want to dwell on that. However, definition is vital; my hon. Friends' interventions have shown that admirably.

§ Mr. McCabe
I want to make the same point, but with specific reference to clause 3(4). I am worried about the way in which the regulations will operate. I am conscious that they may involve safety issues for local authority officers. There must be massive scope for misunderstanding, especially in the case of asylum seekers, who may be subject to pressure from unscrupulous landlords. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has given any thought to ensuring that local authority officers are safeguarded and that accurate, reliable information on which the law can operate is uncovered.

Dr. Turner
That underlines the need for positive resolution so that we have clear regulations that protect the interests of everyone involved—landlords, tenants or local authority officers, who must enforce them.
We have shown the potential sensitivity and complexity of definition. The Government have agreed that relationships will be prescribed by positive resolution. Many of the same considerations about relationships apply to the other three major HMO clauses—4, 5 and 6. Genuine questions could be asked about the registration level, which is controversial. There is fairly wide agreement in the House that three storeys or more and five or more tenants constitute a reasonable level at which to start mandatory registration.

§ Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate)
I am the promoter of a Bill that is lower down on the list. Why is the hon. Gentleman damaging the prospects for his Bill's progress by continuing to speak now?

Hon. Members
He is talking it out.

Dr. Turner
On the contrary; that is not my intention.
I was considering the apparently reasonable definition about which many hon. Members agree. However, some hon. Members want the minimum number of tenants to be reduced. Student organisations are concerned about the condition of many student houses, which do not necessarily have three storeys, and which often consist of only four tenants—a two-storey family house might be let to students, for example. Those organisations want such houses to be covered by the Bill.
There is a considerable level of complexity involved in dealing with these regulations, and it needs the full and open scrutiny of Parliament. I therefore strongly support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Chipping Campden—

§ Mr. Clifton-Brown
Chipping Barnet. Chipping Campden is in my constituency.

Dr. Turner
I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. Have I got it wrong? I often do. I hope that the House will forgive me. The hon. Gentleman knows who I mean.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) referred to the fact that the regulations would be accompanied by penalties. There will be criminal offences associated with this legislation for landlords and others who commit major transgressions of the regulations. Although we are not necessarily going to bang people up for doing wrong under the regulations, they may be subject to a considerable fine. We therefore need to be very clear about what measures they are being required to conform to, and that those measures are reasonable. The positive resolution procedure in the House is a transparent and fair way of achieving that.

§ Mr. McCabe
My hon. Friend has just told the House that there will be penalties for landlords "and others" who transgress. Which others would be subject to penalties, and what kind of penalties would they be?

Dr. Turner
That is slightly speculative. Clear responsibilities will be placed not only on landlords but on tenants. We all know that antisocial behaviour occurs mainly in rented accommodation but, I regret, sometimes in owner-occupied accommodation as well. That is a fact of life. We have all, unless we live in very plush suburban lands, experienced cases of it in our constituencies, and they are extremely hard to deal with.

§ Mr. Gardiner
Freeholders are often at arm's length in these situations, as they employ managing agents to manage the property on their behalf. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the penalties to which he has referred would apply also to the managers who have hands-on responsibility for the administration of the building and for the people living in it?

Dr. Turner
My hon. Friend's point is absolutely correct.

§ Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Turner
I will give way again in a moment.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) had been privy to the original Bill that we drafted, which set out to replace de novo section 11 of the Housing Act 1985, and which covered all these points of detail, he would know that this was a real issue that had to be addressed. It is an issue that the control provisions to be laid under regulations under the Bill will have to address. This emphasises the need for clear, transparent scrutiny.

§ Mr. Robathan
This is a Bill which I support, and which the hon. Gentleman has promoted. Will he explain why he is talking it out? Why is he talking out his own Bill?

Hon. Members
Hear, hear.

Dr. Turner
I am not talking out my Bill. [Interruption.] I am trying to preserve it, contrary to the impression that the hon. Gentleman may have. Had there not been what can only be described as a wrecking amendment from his side of the Chamber, this Bill would now have been passed and we could have started discussing the Bill that all the Conservative Members are interested in. If Conservative Members want to know—