TABLE 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 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
Housing Bill
9:45 am
Mr Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)
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.
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.