Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation and Liability for Housing Standards) Bill

Debate between Clive Betts and Siobhain McDonagh

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 19th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

Yes, there is a history; the history is that we have not got it right, and that is what we are trying to do this morning. I take the point about the housing health and safety rating system. There have been various efforts in that regard, but in the end the position is still that housing that is unfit can be let to tenants, and that is what this Bill is putting right. In some ways it is going back to the 1985 legislation, which unfortunately has been overtaken by inflation as the rental figures in it are now so far out of date that in effect the legislation cannot be used at all. The Bill is turning the clock back to a previous situation and doing so in a very appropriate way.

In terms of the 1985 legislation, the Bill is updating the fitness standards, because it is taking the standards from that legislation but adding to them the fitness standards from the 2004 legislation and making a more comprehensive definition of what fitness should be. It is bringing the two together in a more comprehensive way: it is turning the clock back to 1985 and then modernising and updating the legislation, incorporating the 2004 standards as well, making a more comprehensive definition of fitness to ensure that the homes that are let truly are fit for people to live in.

Giving the powers to the tenant as part of their contract with the landlord means that tenants in local authority housing have the same rights and powers as those in the private sector or a housing association property. It means that any tenant in any rented property has these rights to take enforcement action against their landlord to ensure that their home is brought up to a certain fitness level. The Bill therefore does three things: it ensures that any home has to be fit for the tenant to live in; it updates the fitness standards; and it applies the legislation to local authority housing as well as other forms of rented housing. For those three reasons, the Bill should be supported.

The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) referred to the housing health and safety rating system. When the Select Committee looked at issues to do with the private rented sector in 2013, we called for a review and an update. The guidance on that system has not been changed since 2006 and is now out of date.

There are also questions as to whether the risk-based system is understood by many people. It is complicated and difficult to understand. Most of the professionals might understand it, but the fact that there is not an absolute definition of what is fit and what is not is a problem. Many landlords do not understand it, and if landlords do not understand it, the chance of tenants understanding it are very small indeed. Another look should be taken at whether there should be some basic standards as opposed to simply a risk-based system.

There is something strange about a system under which a house let to one tenant can be deemed unfit with that tenant in it, but if the tenant changes and a new tenant moves in, the house can then become fit, despite no work having been done to it, because the second tenant might be deemed to be less of a risk than the first tenant—under a risk-based system, the level of fitness changes with the change of tenant. That is difficult for most people to understand and we will have to revisit it.

There are also questions about local authorities’ ability to take enforcement action in a range of areas. The Select Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into the powers and resources that local authorities have to carry out enforcement in the private sector.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I recently submitted a freedom of information request to local authorities in London to see how many people had pots of capital to do works if landlords did not do so. The stunning answer was just two, so our laws cannot be enforced at the moment.

[Mr Betts]

This is a problem: we are certainly getting a lot of evidence to that effect, and we are having our second evidence session next Monday.

The Government are bringing in more powers for local authorities to act, and they are welcome. They include, for example, the banning orders that will come into effect in April, which will affect the worst landlords—whose names ought to be up there in lights so everyone can see what they are up to. The Government’s decision to extend the HMO—houses in multiple occupation—definition of properties that need licences to properties with two storeys is right as well. I argued under the Labour Government for that definition, but unfortunately at the time we could not persuade Ministers to include properties of two storeys, so I am pleased this Government are doing that. It will mean more work for local authorities, however, as well as more powers. I hope the Government bring in the requirement that all private rented homes should have their electrical systems checked every five years, too. This consultation has been a long time coming, but I hope that that comes in as well. Again, however, it will mean more work for local authorities.

The Bill essentially gives tenants powers to act, but in reality tenants are going to need support and assistance. They might contact the excellent Shelter telephone helpline, which is based in Sheffield, or Citizens Advice or other advice agencies, or they might go to their MP or local councillors, but very often they will go to their council to seek help and assistance. Although the primary requirement of this Bill is to give powers to tenants, in the end they might well go to the local authority, so with all the other—very good—measures that the Government are introducing, the extra powers for local authorities to take enforcement action and this Bill might put extra demand on local authority officers. The issue of resources is still fundamental to getting this problem sorted out. That will be raised as part of our Select Committee inquiry, and Ministers ought to be listening: without the resources, local authorities will not be able to offer tenants the assistance they need which would make this legislation effective.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between Clive Betts and Siobhain McDonagh

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

First, let me say that the principle of individual registration is unarguably right; indeed, I have supported it for some time. Excellent work has been done by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in this Parliament, but I have read again the recommendations of 2004-05, when a Joint Committee of the Committees of Constitutional Affairs and the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister looked at this issue. We supported the principle of individual registration, and looked at a number of ways in which that could have been done. However, neither of the main political parties chose to look at a proposal I thought might be appropriate: a common household form that individuals signed, so that people registered individually on a single form.

At that time, we discussed the possible consequences of individual registration not being done properly, and that issue has been part of the general argument ever since. As the introduction of these new measures is now being speeded up, I ask the Minister what will happen if our worst fears are realised and there is a significant fall in the number of people on the register. What will the Government’s answer be at that point? Is there a plan B? Are measures in place to address that eventuality, or will Ministers simply wring their hands and say, “Oh dear, we didn’t really intend that. It shouldn’t have happened, but it has happened and there’s nothing we can do about it”? It is reasonable and right that we raise those concerns at this point and ask Ministers to respond to them.

Back in 2004-05, we looked at data matching, which is key if we are to get this process right. It is an integral part of the system, and it is absolutely right that electoral registration officers have access to a whole range of data from private and public bodies—the utilities, postal services, universities and colleges, local authority housing associations, local authority schools, academies and universities. I congratulate the Government on going ahead with their pilots, which is the correct way to proceed. The problem is that, as we know—the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) just mentioned it—the pilots were not terribly informative. They did not convince anyone that the process was in place for data matching to deliver significant improvements to the register at this stage. The Electoral Commission said that the analysis lacked a common methodological framework—in other words, there was no common assessment of the benefits of the different pilots.

I welcome the Government saying that there should be a second round of pilots, but we have not reached the point where we can conclude that there will be significant benefits to the register. Pushing ahead with the new regime of individual registration when we do not really know what the best forms of data matching are and how they will work is a major concern. It is not that I am against the principle of individual registration; however, we are not yet certain that we have the schemes in place really to improve registration through the data-matching process.

The hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) finally got there, did he not? If we had an ID card system in place, we would have everything we need—we would not need to worry about data matching because we would have the basis for a comprehensive electoral registration system with individual registration. We would not have to duplicate it or provide lots of information to different local organisations. This issue is often missed out in these discussions, but the hon. Gentleman got there in the end—two years late. Perhaps some of his colleagues might do so as well.

I am in favour of complete reform of the electoral registration process. Before the Select Committee produced its report, it went to Australia to see what happens there. They described their system to us, and we described ours to them, and they looked at us with a slight degree of amazement when we explained that the main part of our process was to write each year to every household to try to get a response. The people who responded were those who normally respond, and they were often the households that stay the same year in, year out. In other words, we concentrated all our resources on writing at the same time of year to people whose circumstances had not changed. That is a very inefficient and ineffective system, because it does not target the groups who do not respond or the people whose circumstances have changed.

In Australia, they adopt the data-matching approach. They have an existing register, and they make changes when they get information about a change in circumstances—for example, that new people have moved in and others have moved out, or that someone has become eligible to vote because they are now older. They get such information from schools, universities and so on. Their system is based on targeting resources on people who move or whose circumstances in some way change, making sure that they are followed up so that the register can be altered accordingly.

At the time of the report, we recommended that when the system is comprehensively reformed, the annual canvass be dropped and replaced with a three-year audit to check that the register is accurate as a result of the data matching. That is an ideal ultimate position to reach; the problem is that we do not know which data-matching systems will work, and until we do, it is very dangerous to take away other parts of the system that are currently important in ensuring that we get as comprehensive a register as possible. We all know from the excellent work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) that our register is not very accurate, so we must be very concerned about anything that might worsen it.

On the Government’s approach to people who do not register, I welcome their decision to introduce a civil penalty, as it is the right approach. People have a responsibility to register, and the Government’s change in position on that is welcome. They have clearly listened to the evidence, information and views put to them, and responded appropriately. However, I would go further on the requirements.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) raised this next matter in a meeting I was at a few weeks ago. If people are going to need services or benefits from the state that require them to give an address—this is in addition to data being obtained from various parts of government to inform electoral registration officers of the state of play on their register and individuals’ addresses—I do not see any reason why they should not be required to show that they are registered at that address. If someone is going to claim benefits or services from the state, they also have a responsibility to act as a citizen. As a citizen, they should be required to do jury duty and not pass that requirement on to others. Why should they not be required to be eligible for jury duty and therefore to have to register?

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I thank my hon. Friend for supporting my ten-minute rule Bill in the last Session. I hope to bring it back, and I hope that it will have all-party support.

[Mr Betts]

I am certainly prepared to support that Bill.

This is not just about jury service; it is also about the fact that the registers are used to draw up boundaries. If some people decide that they want to opt out of registration, they are, in effect, undermining and reducing the level of electoral representation in their area, by making the constituency they live in have a larger number of residents. That is because the boundaries will be made on the basis not of the number of residents, but the number of people registered to vote in areas. Again, it is a matter of civic responsibility that people should be registering. If they take services and benefits from the state, they should give something back in return.

The other issue I briefly wish to address is how we go about forming a national regime for improving registration. We have to examine the powers that the Electoral Commission has and those it is asking for. As a localist, I think we are currently too prescriptive about the means of getting a comprehensive register. I have mentioned that we may not require the annual canvass in future. The Electoral Commission should give electoral registration officers a general requirement to ensure that as high a percentage of people in an area register as possible. The Electoral Commission should give guidelines and examples of good practice as to how that should be achieved. If EROs then do not carry out their functions—if we clearly see that in some areas the process is failing, whereas in others it is succeeding—the Electoral Commission should have powers not merely to monitor and shame those officers who are not performing in their duties, but to intervene. Those powers are lacking in this Bill. The commission has asked for them—people from the commission mention them every time we meet—and we ought to examine them. We need less prescription about how this is done; a clear requirement for EROs to maximise registration; a clear requirement for the commission to give guidelines and examples of good practice; and powers for the commission then to intervene if there is a failure in particular areas.

I say to the Minister that I have been partly reassured on postal votes. It is very important that people who have long-term postal votes, not for any fraudulent reason, but because they simply need them—perhaps because they are elderly, they are disabled or they work away from home a lot—should not be disadvantaged in any way. As we saw, turnouts in the recent local elections were not high, but turnouts among postal voters, certainly in my constituency, where there have been no allegations of electoral fraud that I am aware of, were much higher. If we do anything to discourage legitimate postal voting, we will reduce turnout, and it is important that we keep that in mind.

I shall conclude now, as I am aware that other hon. Members wish to contribute. I just say to the Minister that the reasoned amendment is just that—it is a reasoned amendment. Many—perhaps all—Labour Members are not against the principle of individual registration; we are merely concerned about an undue rush to implement it, which could damage the number of people registering. Such damage would not be intended by Ministers but, if it were to occur, it would be very damaging to the whole democratic process in this country.