New Clause
30
Code
of practice for the private rented
sector
‘The appropriate
national authority may by
order—
(a) approve a
code of practice (whether prepared by that authority or any other
person) establishing standards of conduct and practice to be followed
with regard to the management of residential property (other than
property controlled or managed by the bodies specified in paragraph 2
of Schedule 14 to the Housing Act
2004);
(b) approve a
modification of such a code;
or
(c) withdraw the
authority’s approval of such a code or
modification.’.—[Lembit
Öpik.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Lembit
Öpik:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a
Second time.
In view
of what you just said, Mr. Gale, I shall continue to
exercise a self-denying ordinance of brevity, and so I shall seek the
Minister’s views on new clause 30, which I tabled with my hon.
Friend the Member for St. Ives. It is once again about enforcing a code
of practice for the private sector. It seems to me, and to
organisations concerned about the matter, that the private rented
sector is still a wild card when it comes to standards. The active
ingredient of the new clause is the establishment of standards of
conduct and practice that must be followed on the management of private
residential property. The debate that we have just had highlights the
dangers of not doing
so.
The Minister will
be all too aware of the fact that many people live in abject poverty in
the private rented sector and, as long as we do not have a more active
way of enforcing standards, that is likely to continue. One of the
problems is overcrowding, which is forced on us by the absence of
sufficient rented accommodation. The County Times in my
constituency, which is without
doubt the finest campaigning newspaper not only in Wales or the United
Kingdom, but western Europe, has frequently highlighted the desperate
shortage of housing in the private rented sector and, indeed, the
public rented sector, in my constituency. As a result of that shortage,
people are willing to compromise their standards and accept
accommodation that in any other circumstances they would regard as
unacceptable. It is therefore incumbent on us to ensure in regulations
that the quality of such private rented accommodation is sufficient to
warrant people’s living in
it. I ask the
Minister to share his perspective on the matter. He does not have to
give us a long response, as long as it is insightful. On that basis, I
shall decide whether to press the new clause to a
vote.
Mr.
Wright:
I applaud the hon. Gentleman for tabling the new
clause, but I intend to outline and explain the mechanisms that we
already have that negate the need for it. Section 233 of the Housing
Act 2004 gives power to the appropriate national authority, which is
the Secretary of State in England and the Welsh Minister in Wales, to
approve codes of practice, whether prepared by that authority or
another person, laying down standards of conduct and practice to be
followed with regard to the management of houses in multiple occupation
or of excepted accommodation. Excepted accommodation is any
accommodation that is specified in an order that is accommodation
controlled or managed by public sector bodies, or other accommodation
specified in regulations, buildings occupied by students or religious
communities, buildings occupied by their owner or buildings occupied
only by two persons who are not living in one household.
The power
has so far been used to approve three codes of practice that
specifically deal with the management of student accommodation. No
other code has been considered necessary as yet, because local
authorities have been active in ensuring that HMOs, which are
frequently the most problematic properties in terms of management, are
managed adequately via the mandatory licensing regime. I am satisfied
with the way in which local authorities are ensuring the management
standards of such
properties.
Looking
more widely than HMOs—I am conscious that we have already
debated them—hon. Members seem keen to ensure for those who rely
on a third party to manage their home that there are common standards
to ensure that the management is conducted properly. I hope that hon.
Members are not surprised to hear that I could not agree more. Everyone
has the right to expect their home to be managed well and
professionally, which is one reason for the private sector review. That
is also why, for people who rent privately, the Government actively
support accreditation, which has been championed by the Accreditation
Network UK, and the national approved letting scheme, both of which we
have provided with funding in the past.
Both ANUK
and NALS ensure that those who rent in the private sector have the
option to rent a decent property from an accredited landlord or via an
accredited letting agent. Accreditation Network UK promotes and
encourages best practice models of accreditation. Local authorities, in
conjunction with local landlord organisations, work together to ensure
that properties and/or landlords sign up to codes of practice on
standards and management. Its model scheme, which has been adopted by
many
local authorities in relation to their local private rented stock,
includes a requirement to fair, reasonable and competent management
practices. Many schemes also provide landlord training and professional
development. Agents
who are members of NALS—there are 1,400 member offices
throughout the UK—have agreed to abide by service levels such as
responding to requests for maintenance or repairs and otherwise
providing good and competent management. Prospective tenants looking to
rent a home in the private sector should be encouraged to use an agent
who is a member of NALS or to let a property that is part of a local
authority accreditation scheme. Many local authorities are looking to
ensure that accredited properties are part of the mix within
choice-based
lettings.
My
Department is currently instigating a piece of work on accreditation to
establish whether the existing schemes are adequate or whether there
needs to be more active support for their take-up and use, which will
complement the work being carried out as part of the private sector
review. NALS is supported by the professional bodies in the lettings
and management sector, namely the Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors, the Association of Residential Letting Agents and the
National Association of Estate Agents, as well as by the British
Property Federation and the Housing
Corporation.
I know
that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire tabled the new clause on the
back of concerns, perhaps of his constituents or Shelter, that the
experience of those renting in the private sector sometimes falls short
of the standards of management that all tenants have a right to
receive. I talked about the private sector review in our debate on new
clause 29, and explained that we are trying to do as much as we can
with that. I stress that the outcomes of the review will help to inform
us whether any further Government intervention or regulation of the
private rented sector is needed, but the Bill is not the place to do
that.
A possible
unintended consequence of the proposed new clause is that such a
national code would apply to all residential property, whether
long-leasehold, freehold or owner-occupied. I do not wish to dwell on
that point, as I want to be as concise as possible, but I am not sure
whether that is the intention. Existing codes for leasehold management
practices, such as that produced and promoted by RICS, adequately cover
that area. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman and that he
will not press the new clause to a
vote.
9.45
am
Lembit
Öpik:
The most interesting thing
that the Minister said was that his Department is, to use his phrase,
doing a piece of work to investigate the quality of private rented
accommodation. I did not know that. He will discover that there is a
huge range of quality. In the private rented sector, there is still
accommodation that frankly is rubbish. People live in relative squalor
in this country in accommodation that does not befit a second-world
country let alone a first-world country. Again, I am touched by the
Minister’s optimism that existing legislation does the job, but
let us recognise that that rubbish accommodation exists here today,
even under the aegis of the Housing Act 2004. That tells me
that however hard he may try to persuade us that existing legislation is
sufficient, there is accommodation that has fallen through the
vice-like analysis of the quality of accommodation in this country
under existing legislation. Therefore, people are living in
accommodation that is bad for their health as well as for the
communities that endure that poor
accommodation.
It is
possible that even the new clause would not be sufficient to change the
situation. We must be realistic and recognise that in 10 years’
time there will still be rubbish accommodation in this country. Part of
the reason for that is that people are loth to complain. I was quite
intimidated by my landlord when I was a student because I felt that he
had all the power and that if I complained too much he would either
throw me out or increase my rent to such an extent that I would have to
move out. We are talking about power relationships in which the tenant
is almost always the junior partner. Therefore, although the Minister
did not say this, I am not completely persuaded that even new clause 30
would be
enough.
Nevertheless,
on the basis of that one very important revelation that the Department
is examining the quality of accommodation in this country, I am willing
to withdraw the motion, but if possible—we do not have to do
this in the next week or two—the Minister might seek feedback
from individuals of all parties about what the style of that
investigation needs to be and what parameters the Department might wish
to set, to establish whether there is something that we can do through
legislation or codes of practice to try to get rid of accommodation
that is harming people in a social sense and sometimes harming their
health as well. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion.
Motion and
clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
31
Statutory
overcrowding: definition of
overcrowding
‘For section 324
of the Housing Act 1985 there is
substituted—
“324
Definition of overcrowding
(1)
A dwelling is overcrowded for the purposes of this Part when the number
of persons sleeping in the dwelling is such as to
contravene—
(a) the
standard specified in section 325 (‘the bedroom
standard’), or
(b) the
standard specified in section 326 (‘the space
standard’).”.’.—[Lyn
Brown.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Lyn
Brown:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: New clause 32— Statutory overcrowding: bedroom
standard—
‘For section
325 of the Housing Act 1985 there is
substituted—
“325
The bedroom standard
(1)
The bedroom standard is contravened when the number
of bedrooms available to the occupiers of a dwelling is less than the
number of bedrooms allocated to them in aggregate in accordance with
the formula set out below in subsection (4).
(2) No account shall be taken for the purposes of
the bedroom standard of a room having a floor area of less than 50
square feet.
(3) A room is
available as a bedroom if it is of a type normally used in the locality
as a bedroom.
(4) For the
purposes of the bedroom standard a separate bedroom shall be allocated
to the following
persons:—
(i) a person
living together with another as husband and wife (whether that other
person is of the same sex or the opposite
sex);
(ii) a person aged 21
years or more;
(iii) two
persons of the same sex aged 10 years to 20
years;
(iv) two persons
(whether of the same sex or not) aged less than 10
years;
(v) two persons of the
same sex where one person is aged between 10 years and 20 years and the
other is aged less than 10
years;
(vi) any person aged 21
years in any case where he or she cannot be paired with another
occupier of the dwelling so as to fall within (iii), (iv) or (v)
above.”.’.
New
clause 33—Statutory overcrowding: space
standard—
‘For section
326 of the Housing Act 1985 there is
substituted—
“326
The space standard
(1) The
space standard is contravened when the number of persons sleeping in a
dwelling is in excess of the permitted number, having regard to the
floor area of the rooms of the dwelling available as
bedrooms.
(2) For this
purpose—
(a) a child
under the age of five shall be reckoned as half a unit and a person
aged five or over shall be reckoned as one unit,
and
(b) a room is available as
a bedroom if it is of a type normally used in the locality as a
bedroom.
(3) The permitted
number of persons in relation to a dwelling is the aggregate for all
such rooms in the dwelling of the numbers specified in column 2 of the
Table set out below in relation to each room of the floor area
specified in column 1.
No
account shall be taken for the purposes of the space standard of a room
having a floor area of less than 50 square
feet.
|
Floor
area of
room
|
Number
of
persons
|
|
110
sq. ft. or
more
|
2
|
|
90
sq. ft. or more but less than 110 sq.
ft.
|
1.5
|
|
70
sq. ft. or more but less than 90 sq.
ft.
|
1
|
|
50
sq. ft. or more but less than 70 sq.
ft.
|
0.5
|
(4)
The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the manner in which
the floor area of a room is to be ascertained for the purposes of this
section; and the regulations may provide for the exclusion from
computation, or the bringing into computation at a reduced figure, of
floor space in a part of the room which is of less than a specified
height not exceeding eight
feet.
(5) Regulations under
subsection (4) shall be made by statutory instrument, which shall be
subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of
Parliament.
(6) A certificate
of the local housing authority stating the number and floor areas of
the rooms in a dwelling, and that the floor areas have been ascertained
in the prescribed manner, is prima facie evidence for the purposes of
legal proceedings of the facts stated in
it.”.’.
Lyn
Brown:
According to the 2001 census,
Newham has the highest average household size in the country. The lack
of bigger homes is a principal cause of the overcrowding, with entire
families living in one-bedroom flats. The negative impacts of
overcrowding and/or cramped accommodation on family life, education,
health and community cohesion have been ably demonstrated in reports by
Shelter and the Royal Institute of British
Architects.
In
Shelter’s report entitled “Full house? How overcrowded
housing affects families”, we discovered that three quarters of
overcrowded families had children sharing a bedroom with parents; more
than a quarter had children sleeping in living rooms and dining
rooms—that rose to more than a half in respect of severely
overcrowded families—and 86 per cent. said that depression,
anxiety and stress in the home were caused by cramped living
conditions.
More than
a quarter of Newham’s homes are overcrowded, according to the
occupancy rating. Indeed, the Department for Communities and Local
Government’s figures from a 2005 study showed that the highest
level of overcrowding at ward level, based on the bedroom standard, is
shared by a ward in my constituency—Green Street West.
Twenty-five per cent. of those households are overcrowded. It shares
the dubious honour of being the most overcrowded ward with its
neighbour, Green Street East, which is also situated in the London
borough of
Newham.
I
have numerous constituency cases in which overcrowded accommodation is
clearly having a very negative effect on family life and
children’s development and achievement, and is placing a real
strain on services and communities. For instance, Mrs. R
lives with her entire family in a one-bedroom property in Stratford.
That is an almost adult family of four. Mrs. R, who is
elderly and has health problems, sleeps on the living room
floor.
Mrs.
B, another constituent who sought my help, lives in a two-bedroom flat
with her four children, whose ages range between four and 14. As one
can imagine, the cramped living conditions have an enormous impact on
her eldest children’s education; they find it difficult to
study, given that they have no space to do so. The schools that the
children attend have written to me on the family’s behalf,
asking whether I can help to get them housed in more appropriate
accommodation.
Mrs. O is trying to
balance her busy career as a nurse with the pressures of an overcrowded
home. She, her husband and their eight-year-old daughter share a
one-bedroom flat in my constituency. Mrs. O will soon have a
greater pressure on her family life because she is heavily pregnant and
is expecting the baby soon.
Mrs.
I from Plaistow has been living in a two-bedroom flat for seven years,
and in that time her family has grown. Her four children are getting
older, and her son has to sleep with two of his sisters in the second
bedroom because of the pressure of space. Mrs. I told me of
her concern about the impact that it has on family life, especially on
her children’s development. Again, the educational prospects
were a great concern.
Frankly, Mr. Gale,
I could continue listing such cases, but I chose those four because
they happen to have come up in the last six weeks. I wish to make it
clear that it is a tiny selection of the cases that have come to my
attention. Often, however, families in
overcrowded accommodation are not entitled by law to larger properties
because of the archaic definition of overcrowding currently on the
statute book. The
current standard dates back to 1935. It bears no relation to modern
living standards. It may have been appropriate in the inter-war years,
when we were clearing the slums in the east end—those that were
left standing after the luftwaffe had played their games—but
they are not the standard for
today.
Under
the existing definition of statutory overcrowding, infants under 12
months old are not counted as members of the household. Those under the
age of 10 count as only half a person. The definition includes living
rooms, and even kitchens, as acceptable places to sleep. Its definition
of acceptable bedroom sharing arrangements is not appropriate to 20th
century Britain.
New clause
31 would overhaul the current definition of overcrowding. It would
insert new wording into the Housing Act 1985 to ensure that bedrooms
and not merely “rooms” counted—a bedroom standard
rather than a room standard. New clause 32 would bring in a new bedroom
standard, based on the statistical measure of overcrowding used in the
survey of English housing, and it has wide acceptance—for
example among researchers—as an appropriate gauge of
overcrowding.
New
clause 33 would update the existing space standard by including all
children under the age of five as half a unit, and everyone over that
age as one unit. Youngsters take up space, as all lucky parents
realise, and a more generous bedroom standard that recognised their
presence would do much to assist young families juggling work and home
to make ends meet; and it would allow our young people more space at
home in those crucial early years.
I want to give hope to
families that find themselves trapped in such circumstances. The high
cost of living and the high cost of housing mean that many families are
completely trapped. I hope that the Minister will be minded to
intervene, when appropriate and possible, to ensure that the size of
new build in areas of the greatest pressure meets the real needs of the
residents. To decode that, I mean that we need to build larger
properties in the developments currently planned in Lea valley and the
Thames Gateway, properties that are appropriate to the needs of the
communities that those areas should serve.
There is a
real social, economic and health cost to families living in overcrowded
conditions. I ask the Minister to recognise that, and to pledge
Government action to tackle it. Overcrowding is completely
unacceptable. I recognise that some local authorities have concerns
that the introduction of a bedroom standard might add further pressure
on social housing. I stated before, that pressure is already extreme in
Newham. However, overcrowded households—even those that are
statutorily overcrowded—are entitled only to reasonable
preference on the waiting list, not to extra priority ahead of others
who are in more immediate housing need. Nor will statutory overcrowding
be anything more than a relevant consideration in reaching a decision
on whether it is reasonable for an overcrowded household applying as
homeless under section 175 of the Housing Act 1996 to continue to
occupy its current accommodation.
An updated
statutory definition will not overburden local authorities or create
unrealistic duties beyond those imposed by current legislation. I
therefore hope to hear something significant from the Minister on the
new clause.
Dr.
Blackman-Woods:
I want to speak briefly
in support of the new clause. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham
has given extensive and compelling reasons why further measures are
needed to prevent overcrowding and provide better space standards.
Clearly, the lack of affordable housing in some areas and the
weaknesses of licensing, which we have discussed, mean that households
will fall into overcrowding traps if they do not meet current
definitions or have the means to move to other accommodation.
I should also stress to the
Minister that many of the new houses that are being built throughout
the country are very small, and families will grow out of them very
soon, so there is an urgent need to look at space standards. Like my
hon. Friend, therefore, I am very interested to hear what the Minister
will say about tackling those issues.
Alistair
Burt (North-East Bedfordshire) (Con): We
have listened with considerable sympathy to the arguments raised by the
hon. Member for West Ham, particularly about the problem of
ever-smaller places being built. I have heard her concerns about the
Thames Gateway echoed by local authorities, which find that one- and
two-bedroom apartments are flying off the shelves, but cannot get
bigger properties built. It is therefore perhaps time for a further
look at the issue, and we, like the hon. Lady, are very interested in
what the Minister has to say. We are certainly sympathetic to her
general
position.
Margaret
Moran:
I, too, support the new clause. We have been
discussing the issue for many years. I have sat on several Committees
that have considered housing Bills, and I remember hon. Members
repeating the need for a modern definition of overcrowding. The current
definition dates back to the pre-war era, as my hon. Friend the Member
for West Ham has eloquently outlined, and it is not relevant to the
modern day.
Some of
those living in my constituency, particularly among the south Asian and
Bangladeshi communities, have very large extended families, and they
face severe overcrowding. At my surgeries, I routinely see a trail of
people who live six to a one-bedroomed property, and that will happen
again tomorrow. It is not acceptable in this day and age to tell such
people that they have no hope of being rehoused, because their lives
are unutterably impossible. Those people’s children live on the
streets, with all the consequences that we know that has in terms of
crime and antisocial behaviour. That is not the fault of those
children, who have nowhere to learn, live or play, and it is
intolerable that they should have to exist in such conditions in this
day and age. We need many more properties in Luton and we have a
desperate need for more three and four-bedroomed homes. Ever more one
and two-bedroomed properties are being built to meet commuters’
needs, but families have no prospect whatever of
moving.
On many
occasions, I have raised the issue of why we do not ensure that RSLs
and councils can allow extensions to homes. If we lived in an
overcrowded home and could not afford to move, we would try to
get a loan to build a loft extension or to extend our home in some other
way, and I do not understand why we cannot allow people in desperate
circumstances to do the
same. 10
am
I
hope that we will amend the overcrowding legislation very soon, but in
the interim, we should ensure that more funding is available to
councils and RSLs, so that they can take practical measures to relieve
at least the immediate misery of some of those families. We also need
to consider how to make the housing allocation system more flexible. It
is simply nuts that a family of six, living in one-bedroomed
accommodation but needing four or five bedrooms, cannot be allocated at
least a three-bedroomed home. Such families’ lives would be
improved immeasurably as a result of that greater flexibility, but the
bureaucratic systems do not allow it. Admittedly, the accommodation
would still be overcrowded, according to the local authority
definition, but for those whose accommodation is so overcrowded and
whose lives are intolerable, increased flexibility would at least allow
a slightly better quality of
life.
Mr.
Andy Slaughter (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush) (Lab):
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton,
South and other hon. Members. The problem of overcrowding dominates the
surgeries and work of a substantial minority of MPs,
particularly—I suspect—in London, the south-east and
inner-city areas generally. I can support the examples that have been
given today: five children in one-bedroomed flats and six children in
two-bedroomed flats are increasingly common, as my surgery case load
demonstrates. It has become the norm—not just common—for
two or three-children families to live in under-provisioned
accommodation that requires extra
bedrooms.
During my
short time in this House, I have taken part in several debates on the
subject, where I have heard from the increasingly significant minority
of hon. Members who have a large number of constituents experiencing
such hardship. It strikes me that were that level of deprivation and
lack of social provision the case in other public services, the problem
would have been addressed sooner.
In the past 10 years,
Government policy has failed to address the crisis in the provision of
low-cost housing of a sufficient size. In part, the Bill will address
that problem by setting out the Government’s intention
substantially to increase housing supply, and affordable housing supply
in particular, in this country. The new clauses represent the other
side of the same coin, which is why I hope that the Minister will
welcome them. However, if the Minister cannot accept them today, will
he at least acknowledge the need to improve the living conditions of
families in overcrowded accommodation? The situation is intolerable,
and it must not be allowed to continue.
The huge
disparity in the cost of market properties, particularly in London and
the south-east, whether rented or for sale, is one of the factors that
have led to the problem of overcrowding. The average price of a
property in Hammersmith and Fulham is £453,000, and it is not
much less in the Ealing part of my constituency. According to the
National Housing Federation, an income 22 times the average is needed
to purchase such
a property, which means that there is no possibility, as there was just
20 years ago, of families on low or average incomes accessing property
in the private sector. We need a greater amount of subsidised housing,
which I believe the Government intend to provide. I strongly welcome
that, if it will help to improve the overcrowding
situation. Although
my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham has said that the new clauses
are not designed to place infeasible and unrealistic burdens on local
authorities, it is absolutely right to send a signal to them that this
is a problem that they have the job of tackling. They have statutory
duties towards homeless people and homeless families, and they are
failing to deliver on those duties in some
cases.
The measure is
to the Government’s advantage, because it fulfils Government
policy. It may be to the disadvantage of some local authorities, and I
shall use the example of Hammersmith and Fulham council, which has
openly set out three ambitions in relation to the provision of
subsidised housing. The council’s first ambition is to minimise
the amount of affordable social housing that is constructed, so that
the borough goes from a situation where more than 80 per cent. of the
housing built in the borough was social housing, as was the case under
the previous Labour council, to a position where the council has a
target of 40 per cent. overall, which is below the London planned
target. The council’s second ambition is to reduce by three
quarters, from about 40 per cent. to about 10 per cent., the proportion
of housing that is social housing for rent and to dispose of as much
existing social housing as it can as quickly as possible by market
sale. Thirdly, the council aims to reduce the overall percentage of
social housing in the
authority.
Those
ambitions run contrary to everything that the Government are trying to
do. Whether they run contrary to the Opposition’s national
policy on housing, I do not know, because every time an Opposition
spokesman raises the issue, different words come out of their mouths.
We hear warm words about housing supply, but we hear very little on the
ground from many Conservative authorities. It is time to turn up the
pressure on local authorities that are not prepared to co-operate with
the Government’s laudable aim on housing supply, and emphasising
the need for change to the overcrowding standard is part of that
process.
Andrew
George (St. Ives) (LD): I rise briefly to congratulate the
hon. Member for West Ham on tabling the new clauses and to indicate my
support and that of my hon. Friend the Member for
Montgomeryshire.
Many Members of Parliament are
aware from their casework—I must say to the hon. Member for
Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush that the problem exists not
only in urban areas, but in rural areas, too—that the existing
standards are often compromised. We often deal with casework in our
constituencies—I certainly do in the west Cornwall and Isles of
Scilly parts of my constituency—in which the existing standards
and regulations have frequently been flouted. The local authorities and
housing providers are well aware of that, and they do their best to
overcome the fact that there are many circumstances in which families
with children of both sexes are managing in properties with two or even
one bedroom.
I
speak with a certain amount of experience of overcrowding myself,
having been brought up in a family of eight children in a property with
only three bedrooms. I know from that personal experience that there
are limits to what one can do with bunk beds and so on, and I know the
other challenges that overcrowding presents to any family. That does
not mean that I have less sympathy for families living in similar
circumstances today. In fact, with the rising standards that we have
today, I have far greater sympathy for those who are experiencing
overcrowding now, because I have experienced it myself in the
past.
I hope that the
Minister takes heed of the strong case made by the hon. Member for West
Ham and others. This is an area where it is important to send out a
clear message and, as the Minister will be well aware, that message
will need to be backed up with the appropriate resources, or with
enabling powers for local authorities and housing providers, to ensure
that we address the serious challenges that many people and families
face as they live in circumstances that we ourselves would not want to
live
in.
Mr.
Wright:
The debate has been important. I am under no
illusion as to the depth of feeling expressed not only by my hon.
Friends the Members for West Ham and for City of Durham, who have
pinned me to the ropes yet again in a most eloquent manner, but others
on both sides of the Committee and, indeed, of the House.
I have found
the debate interesting and illuminating, and I agree with much of what
has been said. I agree that the current definition of overcrowding has
remained unchanged for far too long. The current standards are
inappropriate, inaccessible and archaic, and we need to do something
about it. However, the Government have already committed to moving
towards an updated standard. Hon. Members will recall that when giving
evidence in December, and in a written ministerial statement to the
House on 12 December, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing
confirmed her commitment to amend the Housing Act 1985.
I was very taken by what was
said about the impact of overcrowding on children, which is an
important point. The Government are committed to addressing the matter
of children in bad housing. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, who
has made that point time and again, spoke most eloquently on the effect
that overcrowding can have on children.
We know that one child in 10
lives in an overcrowded house, and I suspect that the figure is
slightly higher, if not substantially higher, in the West Ham
constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham has made us think
about the fact that overcrowding can have a real impact on health,
education and wider well-being—it can leave small children with
no space for toys, which can affect their development. As someone who
is interested in education and how it can improve chances in life and
quality of life, I accept that overcrowding leaves children with no
place to do their homework, so their educational attainment
suffers.
We must
deal with such matters. Children who have nowhere to play with friends
are more likely to underachieve at school, which might lead to their
being
forced out on the streets. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee
know that people are concerned, in both a positive and a negative way,
about gangs on the streets, and we need to do something about that.
Later, we will debate a related clause at some length, but there seems
to be a close statistical correlation between overcrowding and family
breakdown and domestic violence. I know that my hon. Friend the Member
for West Ham is doing an awful lot with regard to that important
point. “The
Children’s Plan: Building Brighter Futures” was published
last month, and it demonstrates strong cross-Government support for
tackling the issue of children in bad housing. As well as setting out
ongoing investment in decent homes and our ambitions for the supply of
new housing, the plan gives a clear commitment to updating the
statutory overcrowding standard proof. If necessary, the Government are
committed to changing those outdated and archaic
standards.
Hon.
Members may be aware that the Government already have the power to
amend the definition of overcrowding through secondary legislation. We
have made a commitment to update the standard, which I absolutely
reaffirm. However, we do not need to put powers in the Bill, because it
can be done through secondary legislation.
In the long
term, we need to be able to affect the supply of housing. The Bill is
designed to achieve better standards and more houses. My right hon.
Friend the Minister for Housing has already announced our priority to
increase the overall supply of housing. Housing is sorely needed in
some parts of the country to tackle the overcrowding problem. We have
already announced the target of 240,000 additional homes a year
by 2016, with the delivery of 2 million homes by that date
and 3 million by 2020. In order to achieve that, we are
providing unprecedented amounts of
investment.
10.15
am
Lyn
Brown:
Will the homes be of the size that we need? It has
been reinforced time and again today, through anecdotes from both sides
of the Committee, that one and two-bedroomed properties are flying off
the shelves, because they are the quickest and easiest to build and
give the best profit margin to developers. We need three and
four-bedroomed, proper-sized houses built to Royal Institute of British
Architects standards, so that we can provide the right places for our
children to grow up. Is there any hope of ensuring that the homes are
of an appropriate
size?
Mr.
Wright:
My hon. Friend has hit the nail
on the head. However, I want to get in my message about the
unprecedented amounts of investment going into housing—I like
saying that—before addressing her important point about needing
larger homes, not dog kennels. We are providing £8.4 billion
across the regions over the next three years to invest in affordable
housing. That will initially be done through the Housing Corporation
and then through the Homes and Communities Agency. The investment is a
50 per cent. increase on previous comprehensive spending review
periods. We are increasing new affordable housing outputs to 70,000 by
2010-11, of which 45,000 will be for new social-rented homes, which is
50 per cent. more than in the current year.
As my hon.
Friend the Member for West Ham has said many times, we need larger
properties, and housing developers need to ensure that family houses
are being built, because that is what people sorely need. Local
authorities working with the Housing Corporation and, in future, the
agency, and developers have an important role to play, through both the
planning system and their strategic housing role. My hon. Friend will
be aware of planning policy statement 3, “Housing”, which
was published in November 2006. It sets out the national planning
framework for delivering the Government’s housing objectives. It
states that the
“key
housing policy goal is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity of
living in a decent home, which they can afford, in a community where
they want to
live.”
Crucially,
PPS3 asks for more support for family homes. It explicitly provides a
requirement that the housing needs of children be considered, and it
places an emphasis on family-friendly developments, including access to
gardens—I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about density in
her area—play areas, green spaces and parks, which should be
well-designed, safe, secure and stimulating.
Similarly, planning policy
guidance 17, “Planning for Open Space, Sport and
Recreation”, states that such
facilities
“have a vital
role to play in promoting healthy living and...in the social
development of children of all ages through play, sporting activities
and interaction with
others.”
I can see from
the corner of my eye that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham,
who is a champion of such matters, is itching to get up and speak, so I
shall give
way.
Dr.
Blackman-Woods:
I applaud PPS3, because it provides a way
forward for better space standards and for the balanced and sustainable
communities that we want to create. What checks will the
Minister’s Department make on local authorities to ensure that
they are delivering the objectives of PPS3 when new developments are
planned?
Mr.
Wright:
My hon. Friend has rightly highlighted our
dilemma. We hear accusations time and again that the new agency will be
a top-down mega-quango that will impose centrally driven targets, but
that is not the case. Local authorities have a responsibility on this
issue. PPS3 clearly states that local authorities should have
flexibility in deciding what sort of housing their areas need. I
imagine that the diversity of housing needs and challenges in the City
of Durham, to which I have been to speak at the symposium on affordable
housing, will be different from those in areas such as Poole. Local
authorities need to flex their elbows on that matter. There will be
local considerations, but I will keep a close eye on the matter to
ensure that family homes with surrounding play areas, which are so
important for children to grow and develop, are provided on new housing
schemes. I shall keep in close contact with my hon. Friend on
that.
Mr.
Slaughter:
I agree with everything that the Minister has
said, but at some point the Government will have to turn their mind to
what they are going to do about recalcitrant local authorities that are
not prepared to play ball. A local authority such as Hammersmith and
Fulham, which I have cited, that says, “Where we had 240 homes
designated for affordable rent and shared ownership, 90 per cent. will
now be available only to people earning more than £50,000 a
year,” and which cynically describes those homes as
“affordable”, is not delivering what the Government
intend.
Mr.
Wright:
I agree. When we debated part 1
of the Bill, we discussed how the Homes and Communities Agency will
suggest how local authorities can step up to the plate. All the
evidence and documentation that I have received about housing in London
seems to suggest that affordable housing and housing suitable for
families are Londoners’ No. 1 priority, and I think that that
issue will be key in London in the next five or six months. With the
greatest respect to the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield and his party,
the work that my side are doing resonates more with the public than
some of what local authorities are doing. Ultimately, we shall find out
about that in local
elections.
Grant
Shapps:
I am pleased to hear the
Minister’s comments about more flexibility for councils on such
matters. To pick up the comments made by some Labour Members on severe
overcrowding problems, would not scrapping the density targets be of
great assistance, so that instead of making one and two-bedroomed
houses the automatic choice, it would be the norm throughout the
country to have
variation?
Mr.
Wright:
I am grateful for that, because
it relates to another point that I touched on in an Adjournment debate
with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, which is that—my
hon. Friend and I may disagree on this—density in itself is not
necessarily the problem. We need very good planning, because planning,
design and quality are key factors. The point that I always make is
that the area of greatest housing density in London is apparently
Kensington and Chelsea. I know that my hon. Friend will say that that
cost a lot of money, and I understand that point, but it is important
that there should be well-designed areas for play, so that people do
not feel isolated and excluded, which is
vital.
Lyn
Brown:
As for the idea that Newham could somehow be
designed into becoming Kensington and
Chelsea—
Lyn
Brown:
Because Newham is one of the 10 poorest areas in
the country, and it is poverty coupled with density that causes social
problems. Density is an issue where people cannot buy or provide for
themselves recreational space and quality of life. Including less dense
areas in areas of deprivation improves quality of life and enables
families to reach their full potential. I accept the points that have
been made about density, but having grown up in a council flat and
lived on a council estate—a good one, which had space—I
know that we can build areas that are appropriate for families.
However, there are too many places in my constituency that have too
great a density and that have many social problems not only because of
the overcrowding, but because there is no space and people do not have
the
money to buy themselves out of that situation. We should not return to
the road of building high-rise blocks and thinking that they will
answer our social needs.
Mr.
Wright:
My hon. Friend has raised an important point. We
do not want to see the return of tower blocks. That demonstrates,
however, the importance of design and planning, which leads me to
reiterate this concern. In the context of place shaping, a
well-designed area with suitable facilities, open spaces and good
quality housing and other accommodation allows people to raise their
games. Alternatively, we all know that poorly designed and badly
planned estates can
depress the spirits and be breeding grounds for crime, antisocial
behaviour and social exclusion. We need to make sure through the Homes
and Communities Agency and bodies such as the Commission for
Architecture and the Built Environment that planning, design and
quality are top of the
agenda.
Lembit
Öpik:
Let us also recognise that
much of what we are talking about is attitudinal. I regret intervening
at this point, but we cannot expect legislation to solve all the
problems. In part, it is because of bad management that we end up with
bad
communities.
It
being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock,
The
Chairman
adjourned the Committee without Question put,
pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned till this day at
One
o’clock.
| 
