| Housing Bill
|
|
Mr. Davey: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 214 and 215. They are probing amendments, and I will address them only briefly because I wish to return to the central thrust of this debate, which is overcrowding. The amendments are related to that subject, but their scope is wider than it. The intention behind them is to understand the Government's thinking on the interrelationship between the new rating system and the old standards, as they apply to HMOs. Although we will debate HMOs at length later, it is important to understand the matter in the context of this debate. The 1985 Act imposed a number of standards that HMOs must meet. They were different—more absolute—than those in the new rating system. Some of those trying to understand the new ratings are concerned that, by entirely removing the existing system and becoming totally dependent on the new one, there might be reduced protection. I am sure that the Government do not want that to be the case. The Bill repeals sections 345 to 400 of the 1985 Act. Their standards will no longer apply to HMOs—for them, the physical standards mentioned in the amendments will cease to exist. We are concerned that, as environmental officers learn to deal with the new system, mistakes might be made: HMOs might be allowed to continue operating when they would not have been allowed to do so under the old system. There is a particular concern with regard to fire standards, on which I would like the Minister to comment. Groups such as Shelter are concerned that the old standards in the 1985 Act were effective in improving the overall fire prevention methods and investment in HMOs and that—although I do not wish the absolute flaw of the 1985 Act to go into the new system—such a positive development might be reduced. Column Number: 17 To return to the main point of the debate, the Committee owes the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) and the other members of the gang of four a debt of gratitude because they have been persistent and effective parliamentary champions of housing reform. My only regret is that the hon. Lady said that her amendments were probing. It would be nice to test the Government a little more. However, I am sure that she has her own tactics. We must recognise the significance of the campaign and the amendments. Overcrowding is not just about poor housing conditions; it has an effect on the health, education and behaviour of families and young children. There is nothing worse for the health of a young family than dangerous overcrowding: when a family member gets an infection, it can readily spread. Other consequences such as those to do with mental health are less immediately obvious. The health of the nation is hugely damaged when a large number of our people are in overcrowded accommodation. Education is another significant area. The Government have been piloting and promoting after-school clubs and so on where children can do their homework. However, many children have to return to flats and homes where they cannot concentrate because their younger siblings or parents are watching television, having a meal, or going about their normal activities, and there is no place for the student to sit and study. Matthew Green (Ludlow) (LD): Is not the ability of any family member to get a decent night's sleep in overcrowded conditions often severely limited? There is much evidence that when young people's sleep is interrupted, their ability to concentrate and learn at school is seriously damaged. Not just homework but performance at school suffers while living in such conditions. Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend makes a good point that adds to what I was saying. If parents are not able to get a good night's sleep, they could underperform at work. Thus, the economy is less productive. That might be dangerous in certain occupations when a person needs to concentrate and has responsibility for others' safety. There are many reasons why the problem is real. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North mentioned her constituency. I should like to cite an example from mine: the local authority told a young couple with a teenager in a two-bedroom property that their new twins could sleep in the galley kitchen. I was shocked by that response—but it was legal. I was concerned for the safety and health of those young children, as was the health visitor. That is where the new standards—the room standard in particular—fail so dramatically. Not a surgery goes by without an overcrowding issue being raised. The hon. Lady represents an inner-London constituency and mine is in the suburbs. Overcrowding is rife, but we are not able to do much about it, partly because of the lack of affordable housing. Let us be clear that the Bill is not an overall solution. Laws do not solve such problems, and they Column Number: 18 will not build any new homes. However, the Bill will put pressure on the Government, the civil service and local authorities to recognise that there is a problem. Moreover, it will develop the housing debate.The hon. Lady is correct. The Government have targeted bed-and-breakfast accommodation and have begun to make significant progress, which adds to the strength of her case. If we had a modern definition of overcrowding, we would be able to show to the press and public that there is a housing crisis even though they do not realise it. Housing is often so low on the political agenda because the press are interested in how fast house prices are rising rather than overcrowding. If there were a new, modern definition that led to stories in the press and debates in the media every year, the public would understand that there is a major housing crisis and that people are living in unacceptable conditions. That would develop consensus in the country on securing the housing investment that we need and making the issue a priority. That is why the Bill is so important. Although it may not build an extra house, it will move the debate forward. My brief from Shelter says that the legislation has not changed since 1935. It is interesting to note the assurances given by the then Minister for Health, Sir Hilton Young, who brought in those 1935 standards. He said:
Even in 1935 they realised that the standard was hardly an ideal solution. Some 70 years later we ought to be doing better. The Minister for Housing and Planning has had much sympathy with the case, as have many Ministers who have held his position in recent years. He has to box in a clever and sophisticated way to answer the campaign and not commit the Government too far. However, I want him to go beyond his brief today, to take a risk and to undertake to return to the Committee after more work has been done. I accept that the Bill covers some overcrowding issues, but many people believe that it does not go far enough. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North says it all. The room space standards under the 1985 Act are ineffective. They lead to some outrageous situations, as the hon. Lady and I have described. It really is time that the Government used their majority and belief in such matters to do something. I forget who said on Second Reading that the Bill was good but that it could be historic. If the Government took action on overcrowding, they would elevate the Bill to that status—of which the Minister, the Government, the Labour party and this Parliament could be proud.
10 amMr. Hayes: This is an interesting and important beginning to our consideration of the Bill. It brings us to the heart of the debate that will no doubt continue throughout our discussions on the first part, which concerns defining fitness and reaching a judgment on Column Number: 19 the various factors that affect the condition of housing. The Bill sets out an ambitious set of changes in respect of redefining fitness, and members of the Committee will be familiar with the draft guidance, which has been made available to us, about the new system. The notable factor is that it introduces into our consideration of housing conditions a range of issues that are associated with risk and the balance between the condition of housing and the activity of the occupants. Essentially, housing fitness in terms of risk is a marriage between the condition of housing and the nature and behaviour—the habit—of the occupants.I shall not go through the guidance in comprehensive detail now, but it deals with crowding and space. Overcrowding has already been mentioned. Indeed, the psychological factors in the draft guidance such as space, security, light and noise are a broad range of considerations that I am sure all members of the Committee will acknowledge. Crowding and space are defined specifically as a type of hazard. The category includes
I have no wish to do the Minister's job for him, but I have no doubt that he will refer to such matters because they go some way to satisfy some of the points that have been made so far in Committee—although I am not saying that they go the whole way. I said that because I thought that the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North was about to intervene and I wanted to save her the trouble of doing so. The draft guidance goes considerably further. Indeed, after reading it, one is almost frightened to go home. It refers to burns, shocks, fires, scalds and difficulties with falls that are associated with stairs and steps, which most of us have in our houses. It covers falls on the level, too, because we can fall over without climbing steps. The guidance then deals with serious matters that are associated with a range of measures that could be introduced to prevent different accidents. It seems ambitious to expand how we assess fitness by defining a series of risks that bring together considerations about housing conditions and considerations about occupants. That is an important step to take and one with which the Opposition have considerable sympathy. We could hardly not have sympathy, given that we are mindful that poor accommodation contributes substantially to other social problems, particularly poor health. The British Medical Association report, ''Housing and health: building for the future''—which I know that hon. Members will be intimately familiar with—makes it quite clear that
Studies have established the risk to physical and mental health from specific factors associated with poor-quality housing. The BMA points out that those are associated not only with existing ill health, but with increasing ill health. It lists a series of housing conditions: cold, damp, mould, indoor pollutants and Column Number: 20 infestation, and overcrowding. It says that overcrowding creates an increased risk of infection, respiratory disease and reduced stature. I am not saying that the stature of any member of this Committee could be reduced, but I am saying that overcrowding is an important element in adding to problems associated with bad housing, and that the link between it and poor health is a serious consideration.The BMA report considers fitness standards and states:
That statement is associated with the comments that we have already heard, and I suspect that it will be with those that we hear when we consider part 1. Linking the existence of a hazard to the consequences is fundamental. When we debate a coming group of amendments, I will discuss ability and disability. I do not want to anticipate that by going into too much detail about it. However, it is particularly relevant to the consideration of how we assess the relationship of occupants to those matters. Overcrowding is clearly a factor in fitness, in the quality of life that people enjoy and in contributing to possible problems of ill health. Indeed, the BMA makes specific reference to overcrowding on page 32 of its report. It states:
It also mentions other factors such as the
Crowding in childhood can lead to a series of concerns, including
It is clear that the impact of overcrowding in early life has significant repercussions for people as they grow older. I have some sympathy with the comments that have been made and I await the Minister's response. In his defence, as I have said, reference is made to those matters in the new guidance. The question for the Committee is whether that reference is sufficient to point people—those who have responsibility for enforcing the standards—in the right direction, or whether we need something more, as earlier contributors suggested. I give the Minister this first and important opportunity to persuade me that he is right and that previous speakers are misguided.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 20 January 2004 |
