New
Clause
9
Design
of new dwellings
‘The
Secretary of State shall amend Part M of Schedule 1 to the Building
Regulations 2000 (access to and use of buildings) to ensure that all
new dwellings of whatever type or tenure meet enhanced minimum
standards in relation
to—
(a) the provision of
a reasonable means of access into and around the dwelling and ease of
use, without modification, by the widest possible range of individuals
(including disabled
persons);
(b) future ease of
adaptation to provide full access into and around the dwelling and ease
of use for wheelchair users;
and
(c) the capacity of the
dwelling to meet the changing needs of any occupiers over their
lifetime;
within 6 months of
the coming into force of this Act.’.—[Sir George
Young.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Sir
George Young:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a
Second
time.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Amendment No. 11, in clause 173, page 68, line 5, after
‘extent’, insert ‘,
accessibility’.
Amendment
No. 9, in
clause 173, page 68, line 24, at
end insert—
‘(m)
facilitating timely provision of adaptations to tenants’ homes
for a disabled occupant (whether by means of assistance provided under
Part 1 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
(c. 53) or
otherwise).’.
Sir
George Young:
We now sail into slightly calmer waters with
new clause 9, which has a breadth of political support denied to the
last two new clauses which we debated. This new clause deals with the
building regulations, and these regulations apply to all housing, not
just social housing. The new clause seeks to bring forward the
amendments to part M. The conditions I would like to see as part of
these amendments are set out in the new clause, and the new clause
suggests that these be implemented within six months of Royal
Assent.
The new
clause touches on some of the arguments adduced in our debate a
fortnight ago on the first set of amendments. This can be found in
column 154 of the Official Report and focused on the remit of
the HCA to promote accessibility of new housing. In that debate, in
column 155, I referred to part M of the building regulations, and in
column 156 I asked the Minister whether he could shed some light on
where we were heading with those.
The Minister replied in column
159. It was a helpful reply, and I welcome what he said. With respect,
however, he sidestepped the direct question about the future of the
building regulations. His reply was about lifetime home standards, and
he said that these
“set
out criteria that make homes more adaptable to people’s changing
circumstances”——[Official Report, Housing and
Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 10 January 2008; c.
159.]
and
“create homes that are
specifically built”——[Official Report, Housing
and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 10 January 2008; c.
159.]
He went on to
say:
“Our
intention is for all homes funded by the public sector to be developed
as lifetime homes by 2011.”
——[Official
Report, Housing and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 10 January
2008; c. 159.]
That is
very different from what is in the new clause, which has a much earlier
start date without the restriction to public sector homes. The right
hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, my hon. Friend the Member for
North-East Bedfordshire and the hon. Member for St. Ives also
intervened in our debate on January 10. I do not want to rehearse in
any detail the arguments I put forward then, but I will summarise the
present situation.
The
current regulations are, in part, approved document M, which deals with
access to an use of buildings. This contains a requirement that for new
private dwellings, reasonable provision shall be made for disabled
people to gain access to and use the building. That is to say there is
a requirement to make sure all new private dwellings can be visited by
the disabled and other such individuals. There was an exchange as to
whether the regulations went further than covering people who visit. I
looked at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation website, and in particular a
page called “The impact of Part M on the design of new
housing”, which summarised the conclusions and found
that:
“Part M
is half-hearted and does not address the real housing needs of disabled
people, namely for liveable rather than visitable
housing.”
I
welcome the amendments introduced by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich when he was Minister;
they are of real benefit to those who visit houses, but they do not go
quite as far as those in the new clause, which is why I have tabled it:
in order to press the Minister as to the Government’s
intentions. The revisions that were introduced represent a step
forward, and I apologise if I did not pay a fulsome tribute to the
right hon. Gentleman in the earlier debate. They make accommodation
more accessible to those with disabilities, to young mothers with
buggies, to teenagers with broken legs, to visiting grandparents, and
to many others. It is good to have those facilities in-built when the
house is being constructed. These new controls, however, do not go the
go the whole way towards introducing the full lifetime home standards,
and further work is now needed to introduce and implement the remaining
elements.
In 2003,
Lord Rooker was asked a question in the other place about the review of
part M. On October 15 2003, he
said:
“My
Lords, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has recently
commissioned research to evaluate the impact of the changes to Part M
of the building regulations, which concerns
the accessibility of all new homes and was introduced in 1999. The work
is expected to begin before Christmas and to report in about two years'
time.”—[ Official Report, House of Lords,
15 October 2003; Vol. 563, c.
934. ]
Over four years
have elapsed since that statement. We now need to know what has
happened to that report and what action the Government proposes to take
in order to build on the existing regulations.
Looking at a reply given by a
Minister in another place in December, it seems to me that the
Government are not planning to take forward the building regulations
but are relying on a non-regulatory code. I quote Baroness Royall of
Blaisdon:
“On the
lifetime home standard and housing for people with disability, the
Government have decided to take forward lifetime homes, at least in the
first instance, through a code for sustainable homes. The Government
consider the code to be extremely important. Its aim is to give
developers a non-regulatory means of improving the sustainability of
buildings and to become the single national
standard”.
She
went on to say:
“Nor does
putting it in the code rule out making lifetime homes part of the
regulatory base in the long run. This is an issue which government will
continue to keep under close
review.”
It
would be helpful therefore if the Government defined more clearly
whether they see the building regulations as the agency for driving
forward progress or whether they are going rely on non-regulatory
means. If they do have plans for further amendment to the building
regulations, what exactly is the time scale for them against the
background of the answer of four years ago I quoted from Lord
Rooker?
Andrew
George:
I wish to add two points to embellish the
excellent case made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire.
First, before I was elected to this House, I sought in a previous life
as a professional officer to encourage registered social landlords and
local authorities to develop in new schemes the capacity to adapt
properties for those who may have a disability or who for other reasons
need to be able to adapt that property in future. I have welcomed the
lifetime homes standard. The new clause 9 brings this forward and seeks
to implement it as quickly as possible. I would hope that, given the
spirit in which the Government has moved this agenda on quite
significantly in the last ten years, they will accept this amendment
and the spirit in which this amendment is brought forward. I hope they
can find a way of speeding up the capacity to achieve this.
My second point covers the role
of disabled facilities grants, as referred to by implication in
amendment No. 9, which is grouped with new clause 9. I
strongly endorse the speedy introduction of these measures. The problem
is—I am sure that many hon. and right hon. Members here have the
same experience as I do in my constituency—the limitations of
the disabled facilities grants. The Government are seeking quite
rightly and with all-party support to do what they can to encourage
greater independent living for disabled people, for elderly people and
for others who may in the past have been living in institutional care.
We are encouraging people to live in their own homes and to enable them
with adaptation to achieve that. The disabled facilities grants are
part of the means by which this can be achieved. The waiting list to
achieve those adaptations is so great, however, that often that is
extremely difficult and for those people waiting for those adaptations
it means that they are in quasi-institutional care or certainly
imprisoned in their own houses and unable to use all the facilities of
their home, including washing facilities. If the amendment were accepted,
it would quite rightly put pressure on the Government to ensure that
the resources are in place to deliver disabled facilities grants and to
enable people to, quite rightly, live independently in their own
property. I hope that the Minister will take on board the spirit in
which the amendments have been tabled and, even if he is unable to
accept them as drafted, I hope he can find a way for the Government to
introduce some redrafts to achieve the same
objective.
5.45
pm
Mr.
Raynsford:
I shall not detain the Committee for long, but
there are a number of issues that should be mentioned. I broadly
support the objectives of the right hon. Member for North-West
Hampshire in wanting to highlight the importance of improving the
standard of new housing, especially the provision of access for
disabled people. However, I fear that his new clause is defective in a
number of ways.
The
first provision—paragraph (a)—is actually a statement of
the existing requirement in part M of the building regulations, so the
new clause would not take us beyond that. Indeed, the right hon.
Gentleman cited part M in his comments. He also quoted the Joseph
Rowntree Foundation as being rather defamatory about part M. In fact,
it warmly welcomed part M when it was introduced in 1999, and its then
chief executive, Lord Best, played a key role in brokering an agreement
between the disability lobby and the house builders—indeed, he
paved the way for it. There had previously been some resistance on the
part of the house building industry towards the introduction of part M,
and I remember the Joseph Rowntree Foundation hosting an event in which
I participated on the day that the new part M came into force. At the
time, I had been heavily criticised by some of elements of the media
for doing away with the great British doorstep, and I well recall the
full support of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and many others,
including the disability lobby, for the introduction of part M in 1999.
As I said in a previous debate, part M had not been introduced by the
previous Conservative Government, despite strong pressure from the
disability lobby.
While I do not think that
paragraph (a) is needed, paragraph (b) is crucial because it refers to
lifetime homes. However, as the Minister has already made clear, the
Government are committed to the implementation of lifetime homes by
2011. The rushed implementation implicit in the new clause tabled by
the right hon. Gentleman is not appropriate. As a former Minister, he
will recall that an important but lengthy consultation process is
required to consider changes to building regulations. That is necessary
for a variety of reasons: to ensure that all relevant parties are
consulted; to consider all relevant technical issues; and to ensure
that the interface among proposed changes in one area of building
regulations and other areas are fully tested. Changes that might seem
desirable in one respect can have unfortunate consequences in
others.
Sir
George Young:
It is a pleasure to listen to a ministerial
reply being delivered from the Back Benches. The lifetime homes
standards apply only to public sector homes—that was the
commitment. What length of time does the right hon. Gentleman think is
appropriate to make progress along the lines of paragraph (b), given
the need to consult with the house building
industry?
Mr.
Raynsford:
I was about to describe the process and to say
that one of the conclusions that the Building Regulations Advisory
Committee has come to as a result of several recent changes is the
importance of better co-ordination of changes. Indeed, Local Authority
Building Control has pressed the Government not to introduce one-off
changes to individual regulations because that can cause a difficulty
with implementation. The right hon. Gentleman might recall that when
the latest change to part L was introduced, it was done in a way that
caused anxiety in the industry because people were not prepared and did
not have time to get the necessary arrangements in place for full
implementation.
Six
months after the Act comes into force is a completely unrealistic
timetable in which to amend part M, particularly in a climate where
there is concern to achieve better co-ordination among the different
parts of the building regulations and to adopt a proper considered
approach towards the cumulative effects of changes on
buildings.
Paragraph
(c) of the new clause seems completely unfeasible. Anticipating the
changing needs of any occupiers of a building over their lifetime would
require the wisdom of Solomon. The right hon. Gentleman might have
that, but when he and I were born, we had no idea of the scope that
there is now for electronic contributions to so many aspects of our
lives. I am sure that other technological changes that no one can
possibly anticipate now will be made in an equivalent period, but that
is optimistic crystal ball
gazing.
The right hon.
Gentleman was right to raise the issue. It is important for us to
continue looking at ways in which we can improve standards coherently,
sensibly and in a way that the industry can implement. I hope that my
hon. Friend the Minister will give some assurances about the
Government’s commitment to achieve that, while probably
rejecting the amendments and new
clause.
Alistair
Burt:
I rise to discuss the sentiment behind the new
clause that was so ably moved by my right hon. Friend. I well remember
the pressures described by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and
Woolwich and the approaches of the disability lobby on this issue when
I was Minister for Disabled People. Their arguments reminded people
that this is about not only disability, but ageing. There is the cost
of adaptations to homes and the issues raised when people are happily
living somewhere with the feeling that they might have to leave and go
somewhere else. I found the argument that we should consider how
society gets older right at the beginning of the process of housing,
and think about these things in a rather different way, very
persuasive. I have always described involvement disability work as a
benevolent ratchet—it always moves forward. Sometimes it does
not go quite as
quickly as the lobby would like, but with a succession of Ministers,
both Labour and Conservative, it has moved in the right
direction.
The right
hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich was also right to indicate that
the general reaction of those asked to make changes, whether that is in
transport, government or private development, is usually to say no
first and to stall. We then see adaptations coming through as we are
doing with transport and the like. It might not be possible for the
Minister to accept the new clause, but the arguments behind it are
still valid. If we do not make changes quite like this, what will we
do? Will we continue to have a process whereby due to the pressure of
building new houses, we build them with smaller spaces for people? We
are living in smaller units than we used to and the problem could get
worse.
To what extent
are the Government prepared to give guidance and, even if they cannot
accept such a new clause, to say that there will be some changes and
that they will be thinking about this sensibly for the future? This is
about not future costs, but saving future costs in the long run. My
right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire presented his
case extremely well and the sentiment of the Committee is clear. I will
be interested by how the Minister responds and what reassurances he can
give us for the
future.
Mr.
Wright:
This has been a high-quality debate, and my right
hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has already made many
of my points. I cannot really stand up, following the consideration of
the last new clause, without commenting on what the hon. Member for
Welwyn Hatfield said in praise of Mrs. Thatcher. One of the
reasons why I am in the Labour party is because of Mrs.
Thatcher, who decimated the north-east and my constituency. Forgive me
for that little rant, Mr. Benton, because we have had a
well-meaning and high-quality
debate.
I point out to
the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire that we made significant
improvements in access to, and the use of, buildings in the last update
of part M of the building regulations in 2004. Further measures to
improve access and use have been developed through the lifetime homes
standards, as we have mentioned on several occasions during our
consideration of the Bill, not least today. As I said, lifetime homes
standards are now included in the code for sustainable homes.
In our response to the public
consultation on the code for sustainable homes, we clearly indicated
our intended direction of travel and our speed, with lifetime homes
standards required at code level 6 from 2008, code level 4 from 2010
and code level 3 from 2013. Moreover, from 2011, all new publicly
funded housing will be built to include lifetime homes standards, and
many schemes now starting on site will include those standards once
they are completed.
I
visited a development in Newcastle upon Tyne—another area that
was decimated by Mrs. Thatcher—where houses with
lifetime homes standards were being built. Their density and size and
the amount of space were incredibly impressive. We continue to work
with stakeholders in the private sector to encourage further uptake of
the lifetime homes standards.
We said that by 2012 we would
review the uptake of LHS in all sectors to assess whether legislation
was required to meet our long-term targets, which brings me on to the
subject of possible regulation. In March 2004, a commitment was made to
review the feasibility of including LHS in part M of the building
regulations. That was done, and one of the findings of the review was
that the standards were not in a form suitable to support legislation
and that they required updating and refining.
Since then,
we have supported steps to address the issues. For example, on 11
January, the British Standards Institution published a draft for
development on accessible homes, which will provide the basis for the
review and development of the existing lifetime homes standards. We
will ask the Building Regulations Advisory Committee to form a working
party to contribute to the consultation on the draft for development,
and it is envisaged that the working group will include a number of
main BRAC members and seconded experts. We are committed to working
with stakeholders to develop the most economic and robust way of
delivering the benefits of lifetime homes
standards.
This
is a vital process, as it is widely recognised that the existing
standards are not applicable to all housing types and that the
technical guidance needs to be clarified and updated. Legislating on
the basis of the current lifetime homes standards would be imprudent as
they might lead to a significant number of appeals and disputes if they
were translated into regulatory form.
It is important that we take
this opportunity to ensure that the guidelines on lifetime homes
standards are robust and will succeed in delivering the accessible and
adaptable housing that is needed. That will also ensure that the
lifetime homes standards are fit for regulation, if that proves
necessary in the future.
My right hon. Friend the Member
for Greenwich and Woolwich rightly mentioned the process for amending
building regulations and he made his point very well. The process is
lengthy and detailed, and it requires the formal amendment of the
building regulations—the secondary legislation made under the
powers in section 1 of the Building Act 1984.
As the right hon. Member for
North-West Hampshire is aware, to amend the regulations, we are obliged
by law to follow a procedure that is likely to involve a review of
existing legislation, a public consultation on proposed changes
following the review, and the notification of draft and final amended
guidance to the European Commission, in addition to the time required
for the drafting and review of a highly technical subject. On that
basis, I hope that the Committee will agree that the proposed time
scale of six months is unrealistic.
We must also ensure that the
industry has sufficient time to adapt its practices and designs to
incorporate lifetime homes standards. That is particularly true for
smaller developers and house builders that will be working to the
standards for the first time and might not have the resources of larger
organisations. As the draft standards mature during 2008 and 2009,
builders will have the opportunity to visit early adopting schemes and
to review emerging housing typologies. That will help to provide the
entire house building
industry with the necessary confidence and understanding to adopt and
implement lifetime homes
standards. In answer
to the right hon. Gentleman, as a result of the considerations, I think
that regulation is not the best way to proceed. Amendment No. 11 would
add the word “accessibility” to clause 173(1)(a) so that
it would read:
“The regulator may set
standards for registered providers as
to—
(a) the
nature,
extent,”
accessibility
“and
quality of the social housing to be provided by
them”.
I have no doubt
that we will discuss clause 173 in more detail in the future. I
understand that a large number of amendments have been tabled on that
important part of the Bill. The aim of clause 173(1) is to specify in
what general activities the regulator may set standards, namely the
nature and extent of social housing, and the nature, extent and quality
of accommodation facilities and services provided in connection with
social housing. That means that only issues connected with social
housing are
covered.
6
pm
Standards for
the design of new homes and the wider built infrastructure will not be
a matter for the regulator, although they might be of concern to the
Homes and Communities Agency. There are activities to do with
accessibility of social housing where it would be appropriate for the
regulator to set standards. I suggest to the right hon. Member for
North-West Hampshire that those are covered by clause 173(1)(b), which
permits
“the nature,
extent and quality of accommodation, facilities or services provided by
them in connection with social housing.”
Therefore, a specific mention of
accessibility would be an unnecessary level of detail in subsection
(1).
New clause 9
would also amend clause 173, and would add to the list of areas where
standards may by issued. It would add a new paragraph (m), which says
that standards may cover the timely facilitation of adaptations to
tenants’ homes for the disabled. We are back to the list
principle that we have mentioned many times. The measure is not
necessary because clause 173(1)(b) already allows the regulator to set
standards in the area—for social housing only—and it can
do so when it is appropriate and necessary. The new clause would not
compel the regulator to set standards. It is the regulator’s
decision what to set standards on, through consultation with
stakeholders on what those should be.
If there is no Housing
Corporation regulation, choosing to regulate in the future would be an
additional burden on housing associations. We are committed to reducing
the burdens on the sector, and it is a clear objective of the regulator
to regulate with minimal interference. Housing associations currently
meet the cost of small adaptations from their own resources, but larger
ones require outside funding.
We strongly
encourage the adaptation of suitable homes. Our disabled facilities
grant, which we may discuss in subsequent new clauses, enables people
to continue to live independently in their own homes, by funding
adaptations to meet their needs. It is highly successful, with
Government funding increasing from
£57 million in 1997 to £126 million
last year. In 2008-09, funding will increase by 20 per cent., bringing
the disabled facilities grant budget to £146 million per
year. Despite the
success of the disabled facilities grant, we accept that the programme
is still in need of improvement. That is why we launched a
cross-departmental review of the programme, and a package of changes to
improve it will be announced shortly. I believe that the Housing
Corporation currently expects associations to provide tenants with
adaptations where required, and it is expected to make provision for
this in its business plans. If so, that might be an issue for the Homes
and Communities Agency to address in grant provisions.
I hope that I have addressed
that thoroughly enough for the Committee, and on that basis I hope that
the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the
motion.
Sir
George Young:
It would be unduly aggressive of me to do
what the hon. Gentleman implied and press the matter to a vote. I want
to make a number of short points, however.
I am sure
that the Blair Government was able to do things that the Major
Government did not do in this sector. I need to reassure people that
the Cameron Government will do things that the Brown Government was not
able to do. If one looks at the development of improved facilities for
disabled people, there is a continuum through all parties beginning, in
my political lifetime, with Alf Morris, which has gone right through
and has been apolitical. My anxiety is that there should not be a loss
of momentum.
The
right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich mentioned that in 1999 he
introduced the regulations that we have referred to. That is what he
achieved between 1997 and 1999. My concern is that the trail should not
now go cold. Here we are in 2008, and the building regulations do not
seem to have moved forward enormously. A working party is going to
consult, but the Minister was not able to give specific dates on the
building regulations. I welcome what he said about sustainable homes
and lifetime homes standards, but I think that that is all
non-statutory. It is voluntary and does not have the teeth that the
building regulations will have. If we do not achieve the progress that
we want, it may be necessary to revive the building regulations as the
engine of progress.
It has been a useful debate.
The Minister has shed some light on the matter and his heart is clearly
in the right place, but it is an area that we may have to keep an eye
on to maintain the momentum. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion.
Motion and
clause, by leave, withdrawn.
| 
