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)
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
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:
''The standard laid down need not be regarded as the ultimate ideal to which we should work. It is one upon which it is possible to begin to get this reform under way.''—[Official Report, 30 January 1935; Vol. 297, c. 364.]
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.