Houses in Multiple Occupation

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) on securing this debate, and on the way in which she put her case to the House. I do not disagree with one word of what she said. The hon. Lady has campaigned and been active in the House on the issue of HMOs, as have I. If the Minister here today—and the Minister who was present at what might be called part 1 of this discussion, which took place on the prayer against the orders that were debated in Committee Room 12 on Tuesday—will not listen to me, I hope that they will listen to her.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that, in Loughborough and in many other communities, the advent of new rules that enabled local authorities to take planning action as far as permission for HMOs was concerned represented a manifest step forward. Local authorities in many towns and cities had long wanted a change to be made so that such action could be taken.

As has been said, the debate is not about students or studentification. It is about balanced and sustainable communities in those parts of the country where students—but not exclusively students—occupy HMOs. It is not the students’ fault, and not their concern, but such homes are often used in that way without conversion—and, as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) said, without any thought of safety. They are placed in the HMO market and are instantly occupied by four, five, six or even seven people, where previously a family may have lived, with the attendant changes and stresses on the community that that represents.

Such change was for a long time out of sync with planning and housing legislation, and the idea that it could be subject to planning regulation and planning permission was a great step forward, not only in theory but in practice. The balanced and sustainable communities all-party group visited Belfast last year to see how the changes had been implemented there. It was a precise parallel, with the use class orders for housing separated into two, and the changes have worked well. Not only that, but the landlords in Belfast thoroughly supported the changes. They accepted that the new regime brought a number of benefits for them, as well as for the communities affected. I agree with the hon. Member for Loughborough that when the changes came into effect in the spring they made a difference. It was a difference too long in coming, but it was nevertheless real.

We then come to the October changes. Frankly—I shall not mince my words—they were an act of legislative vandalism. They purported to change the planning regulations so that planning permission could be required, under article 4 direction, in the communities with a concentration of such properties. As the hon. Lady said, it is extremely unlikely, particularly in the present circumstances, that many local authorities will take that route.

I have a letter announcing that the local authority in Southampton is cutting 250 jobs; among them are five environmental health officer jobs. That is the result of a £62 million deficit in the council’s budget heading. The idea is fanciful that, at the same time as such cuts are being made, local authorities could easily take on board the risk of the compensation payments that might loom. It is also fanciful to suggest that local authorities would undertake a process outside the planning system, when if the planning permissions requirement had remained, the application fees would have paid for most of the changes so they would have been, effectively, self-funded.

We are back to the status quo ante. Like the hon. Member for Loughborough, I received a cyber missive late last night from the Minister for Housing and Local Government, setting out his reasons for the change. After a page of discussion on article 4, which is not quite the weapon that he thinks it is, he said that the problem affected only a small number of communities. That is not right. Indeed, in our debate on the orders on Tuesday, he said that the Rugg report on the consultations on the legislative changes made in April stated that only 0.5% of wards were affected. However, that was based on the idea that 10% or more of homes in that particular ward had already turned into HMOs. He then conceded that that was a substantial underestimate, and that 5% or 6% of communities were affected. That is out, I think, by some 15%, and I put the figure at 20% or 30%.

Most of the main freestanding towns and cities in this country have this issue at the heart of their communities. It is not a tiny minority issue. It may be the case that in substantial parts of the country it is not a particular issue but, as the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) pointed out, those are the places in which very few applications are made, so it is not a particular imposition—in theory at least—for those communities to have to look at planning permission as far as such homes are concerned. Even if it were an imposition, the original suggestions made during the discussions before the April measures provided for the idea of an opt-out.

In the letter that appeared on my computer last night, the Minister said that the change is all about localism. However, what has happened with these changes—which are frankly unbelievable amendments to the April changes—is that local people have been denied the opportunity to take back control of how their communities are balanced and planned by their local authorities. A far better version of localism would have been to enable communities and local authorities to opt out of measures if they thought that they were not appropriate for their areas. That would have been a genuine local choice. Before the recent changes, if communities had had serious concerns, the use class changes, the planning permissions, the funding and the ability of those communities to make decisions based on local need would be firmly in place. I therefore reject the idea that the measure is all about localism; it is not. It is about taking us back to the position we were in before any changes were made. I regret to say that those people who have been campaigning hard for change will have to do so all over again.

I hope that the Government will think again about the changes, review them early and conclude that they have got them wrong. I hope rather than believe that that will be the case. It may be that the representations that were made by the hon. Member for Loughborough will have to be repeated by many others to enable us to make progress to the balanced and sustainable communities that could have been achieved by these changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to this debate, which has included well informed and occasionally passionate contributions from Members. I do not want to minimise the underlying point that it is important to ensure that houses in multiple occupation are appropriately placed, safe and secure and that they do not have a destructive impact on their neighbourhood. It is certainly not the Government’s intention to give a charter of immunity to unscrupulous landlords. On the contrary, we have introduced a targeted process of control that is available to local planning authorities. As quickly as I can due to limited time, I will explain to the House exactly what is proposed, state what progress has been made and, as far as I am able, answer the questions raised.

One point at issue is how widespread the problem is. The Minister for Housing and Local Government gave in the debate on Tuesday and brought to the Committee the estimate made in the Rugg report. He said, “Let’s assume for the sake of argument that it’s actually 10 times worse than that, and that it’s 5%.” Members have said today that 20% of the country is affected. In that case, I must say gently to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) that he cannot claim at the same time that 8,500 planning applications is an overestimate. If the size of the problem is anything like what some people have described, the number of applications made will be hugely greater. In fact, if it is a 5% problem, that means that out of the 8,500 applications that the impact assessment anticipates, only 450 would be in problematic areas. That would impose on landlords a £12 million application cost that would be completely unnecessary for 8,000 out of those 8,500. I say to hon. Friends who perhaps believe even more strongly in deregulation than I do that surely there cannot be anything very wrong with that.

[Dr Whitehead]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Stunell]

Certainly, but my time is limited.

[Dr Whitehead]

I understand that, so I will make my intervention brief. The Minister’s mathematics simply do not add up. If the problem is as concentrated as he suggests, most of the applications will be made in certain areas and not others. He cannot divide the number arithmetically across the country, conclude what the number of planning applications will be and still stand by the view that it represents only a small number of wards in the whole country.

[Andrew Stunell]

I can, and I shall debate it with the hon. Gentleman later over a cup of coffee. I point out that that is not at the heart of the Government’s case. Our case is quite clear: effective legislation should be in place where there is a genuine problem. We are saying that that will be determined by local planning authorities, not by national legislation.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman has a letter from Southampton city council. I know that Southampton and Portsmouth do not get on well, but Portsmouth has already started the process of imposing an article 4 direction on the whole city. It takes 28 days to do it, and then its 12-month period will run. Perhaps Southampton should learn from Portsmouth. It is dangerous for me to say so, but I will say it.

I commend the Minister for Housing and Local Government on pointing out in the debate on Tuesday that in his constituency of Welwyn Hatfield, Welwyn was fine while Hatfield had a problem due to the university of Hertfordshire students and their HMOs. He supposed, and I understand that he told the Committee, that Welwyn Hatfield council would take action on article 4 in relation to part of its area. Several Members who have spoken in this debate mentioned specific areas in their constituencies that were a problem. The hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) mentioned Branksome East and Winton in particular, and the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) discussed three wards in her constituency.

That is exactly the Government’s point: the problems are comparatively localised, although serious where they arise. We believe that there is a better way to address them. We believe that the article 4 system will deliver. There is already evidence from Manchester, Portsmouth and Exeter that local authorities are responding and are not finding it unduly burdensome to go down that route. The guidance issued by the Minister for Housing and Local Government on 4 November will, I hope, give them some additional reassurance on that point.

I welcomed and enjoyed the contribution made by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan). Yes, we will be undertaking a review, as she requested. Yes, monitoring will take place. I am absolutely sure, given all the eyes turned on us, that if we did not, the House would be quick to remind us of it.