| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
11 Leave out Clause 27
The Commons disagree to this Amendment but propose the following Amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
11A Page 12, line 28, leave out "publish" and insert "give, in accordance with subsection (2),"
11B Page 12, line 30, at end insert—
"(2) The guidance shall be appended to an order made by the authority by statutory instrument.
(3) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (2) made by the Secretary of State is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 11 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11A and 11B to the words so restored to the Bill. I spoke to these Amendments with Amendment No. 4
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 11 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11A and 11B to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
20 Jul 2004 : Column 135
12 Leave out Clause 28
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
12A Because intervention powers are necessary in order to enforce the duties in Part 2
13 Leave out Clause 29
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
13A Because intervention powers are necessary in order to enforce the duties in Part 2
14 Leave out Clause 30
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
14A Because intervention powers are necessary in order to enforce the duties in Part 2
15 Clause 31, page 14, leave out lines 6 and 7
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
15A Because intervention powers are necessary in order to enforce the duties in Part 2
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 12 to 15 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 12A to 15A. I spoke to these amendments during the debate on Amendment No. 4.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 12 to 15 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 12A to 15A.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Housing Bill
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [Meaning of "category 1 hazard" and "category 2 hazard"]:
Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 1:
"( ) Meanings of "category 1 hazard" and "category 2 hazard" shall be prescribed for the purposes of this Act.
20 Jul 2004 : Column 136
( ) Those meanings shall be so prescribed by reference to—
(a) hazards of prescribed descriptions, and
(b) a ranking system for the severity of such hazards by which the question of whether a hazard achieves a particular ranking is decided by reference to—
(i) the results of qualitative assessment of the hazard in question, and
(ii) an assessment of whether those results meet prescribed qualitative criteria."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 7, which are in the group.
The amendment seeks to rewrite the way in which the two types of hazard gain meaning. The Bill proposes meanings based on a numerical scoring system; Amendment No. 1 would specifically write into the Bill that the meanings found foundation also in qualitative considerations.
So why have we brought forward the amendment? As the Bill stands, it would define the banding and categorisation of a hazard based on a numerical score arrived at by an inspector. It is not disputed that in arriving at the score professional judgment would also be required. A score would be difficult to defend unless there is some explicit recognition of the judgments required.
I am grateful to the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, which has brought the matter to my notice and to the notice of others. It has highlighted this issue because it believes that the decision should be based on descriptions rather than just on scores. The old system that the new housing health and safety rating system will replace contained advice and guidance, but it was judgment based.
The Government have piloted version one of this system, and a number of problems were found by environmental health officers. Although version two has been produced, it has yet to be tested. There are still questions surrounding this, which is the purpose of raising the amendments at this stage.
On 20 January 2004, the Minister in another place, Keith Hill, recognised the problem at col. 48 of the Committee's proceedings in the Official Report. On Report in the Commons, this same amendment was debated, although it was not pressed to a Division. Mr Hill recognised these concerns and explicitly referred to the "judgment of the inspector". The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has indicated that regulations and guidance can address our concerns, but I think it right that we explore this fully.
The amendment would remove these concerns by explicitly basing the categorisation on qualitative considerations. It need not undermine the principle of a numerical system, but it would make it more of an underlying than an underpinning system. It would provide for greater protection against challenges on numerical calculations.
20 Jul 2004 : Column 137
Along with many others, we support the principles of the new system. It is right that the effect of housing conditions on the health and safety of occupants should be decided on the basis of hazard analysis and risk assessment. We also welcome the addition of many new hazards, as compared with the current fitness standard, and also the evidence base that has been established. However, I emphasise again the concern of many that when enforcement action is taken under the new system through tribunals or courts, such cases could get bogged down in a lot of legal and technical argument about scores, arising from the use of this system.
It is important that court decisions are made on the basis of descriptions of the property rather than on scores. In this regard, the guidance notes that will be issued by the ODPM are crucial. I have had communications from the Minister about various pieces of guidance that arrived at the end of last week. I really have not had the time to digest them; perhaps the Minister can tell me more when replying to the amendments. We want the system to protect occupiers, but it must not become a charter for lawyers.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 4, which aim to widen the meaning of "hazards" to include other matters of housing condition, back up Amendment No. 1. They were discussed in another place. As I said on Second Reading, there was some discussion about the repeal of Section 190 of the Housing Act 1985. The Minister in another place wondered whether this was why these issues were being raised. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify the Government's position on the repeal of Section 190 of the 1985 Act.
Amendment No. 7 backs up the intention of the amendments in my name in the group. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 16, 18, 19 and 22, which are in my name, also relate to the hazard categories of the assessment. I am aware that this series of amendments was raised in another place, but I believe it is worth us having another look at their intent in order that we may be able to discuss some of the Government's intentions in relation to the assessment of housing standards and the system for defining hazards, as set out in the Bill. I also hope that the Minister might, in his usual skilled manner—that is what I have written down here—provide noble Lords with slightly more detailed explanations than those received by honourable Members in another place. In that regard, the amendments should be seen as essentially probing in nature.
Amendment No. 5 would amend the definition of "hazard" so as to clarify that deficiencies in buildings or land should be in the immediate vicinity. It is likely that any potential problems with the house will be on the premises, so my question is: what other circumstances does the Minister envisage coming into play that would not be in the immediate vicinity?
Amendment No. 6 would require disability to be taken into account in the methodology used to determine the seriousness of hazards. The estimated
20 Jul 2004 : Column 138
number of disabled people in this country varies between 6.8 million and 8.5 million. A very large number of people are not registered disabled and are not chronically disabled, but may be temporarily disabled. They may have a dynamic disability of one sort or another, which is changing, and their needs may change accordingly. They may have moderate learning difficulties; they may fall into a number of categories; they may be temporarily very ill; they will have housing needs, be subject to hazards and be vulnerable in a way that the Bill should identify and cope with. Only by defining ability and disability using a different kind of evidence-based approach will we get to the people that we need to reach if we are to make the Bill work to the best effect.
Amendment No. 8 requires that the hazard bands should be,
Those hazard bands will be described in regulations. To be effective and to stand up to robust legal challenge, they will need to be clear.
Amendment No. 9 would add "physical and environmental" to the definition of health. Again, we are looking for a firm commitment.
Amendment No. 16 in Clause 5 and Amendment No. 19 in Clause 7, along with Amendments Nos. 18 and 22, have a similar intent to that of Amendment No. 8. Again, we wish to probe the Minister to be more specific about the balance between category 1 and category 2 hazards and where such hazards would actually arise.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |