New Clause 18A - Overcrowding
Housing Bill
5:15 pm

Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton North, Labour)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am pleased to be able to move the new clause at long last. I hope that if my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is not able to accept it—I do not expect him to be able at this stage—that he will give an undertaking to come back on Report. I do not intend to go back into all the overcrowding issues because the new clause proposes a method for dealing with the problem, not the solution, in terms of a new set of standards. It is important that that is understood. One reason why the whole overcrowding debate became so problematic was because of what was on the face of legislation, which could be changed only by primary legislation. Time after time, the opportunity has been missed. Things has got to the point where it will be impossible to upgrade all the standards in one fell swoop because they are so far adrift from what most people recognise as being reasonable. I know that local authorities are concerned about the implications of that. It will take careful discussion, not just one go, to reach desirable standards, and they will have to be ratcheted up over time. To do that, it is very important to have a more accessible procedure, and one that can be more easily adapted to changing circumstances and views, than to have everything in primary legislation. Recognition of the time constraints involved and of how difficult it can be to get practical agreement on the best way to proceed is what we need to deal with overcrowding.

Regarding the kind of changes that could be made, there has a been a long debate about the standards that people might want. For example, if kitchens were excluded, if they did not have to be counted as bedrooms, that would be a huge improvement for some families. Families with more than two children should be entitled to a living room. Being mischievous for a moment, I think that the National Asylum Support Service allows asylum seekers to have accommodation with a living room. In this day and age, it should be accepted that families have some living space as a general requirement.

There is the issue of when children are counted in or out. Our previous debate about gender segregation highlighted some of the difficulties and complexities. There is an issue about husbands and wives being allowed to sleep together, instead of having to be separated—if that is what is required—to meet the rules on gender segregation, which I have seen in some homes. There is an issue of the rule about children being counted only once they reach their first birthday, partly because children in 1935 used not to have all the paraphernalia that they have now. Everyone who has

a child knows about the carry cots and the rest of it. It also probably has something to do with higher infant mortality rates in 1935. There has been such a change that we really have to look at all the issues very carefully. That is my wish list.

Any changes have to be properly worked out and consulted on. At this stage, the most important thing is to create a process that can lead to a deliverable conclusion, that does not raise false hopes among people, that does not frighten local authorities half to death, and that will improve living standards for families. Essentially this is a problem of families and of children. They, not single people, are the ones who are overcrowded. The fact that it has been so difficult to get improvements in the last 70 years means that we need to consider a different approach, and take the provisions out of primary legislation. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will think about bringing back some proposals on Report to take things in that direction.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)

I shall speak in support of the hon. Lady for less than a minute because of the time pressures that the Committee is under. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole will time me.

The hon. Lady's point is important. We had a long debate on it at the very beginning of our Committee's considerations; I think that the very first amendment, which was moved by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, was on the issue. The issue is important because the relationship between overcrowding and a range of other problems is profound. I mentioned in that debate that there is a proven relationship between overcrowding and ill health, for example, and that view is endorsed empirically by a number of sources.

It is quite unacceptable that we allow overcrowding to increase. It is growing in certain parts of the country, and certainly in our cities. Other hon. Members have spoken about that; I think particularly of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), who has a real problem with overcrowding in her constituency, which interestingly and worryingly is growing, as she tells us when she speaks on those matters. That is not appropriate in a civilised society. All who value a society dedicated to improving standards for all its citizens and eliminating the problems that the hon. Member for Northampton, North described, about which I care just as passionately, have a responsibility to do all that we can to advance the interests of the most vulnerable of our fellow countrymen. To that end, I am delighted to offer my party's support for the hon. Lady's new clause.

Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

As I said about the previous amendments, we, too, support the new clause's approach to dealing with the issue, and hope that the Minister will see fit to deal with the matter on Report, as he has already suggested he might.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

We all have strong feelings about overcrowding. The problem is one that I confront regularly with my constituents—mine is an inner-London constituency—and we would all like to resolve the issue. However, we must be clear that resolving the issue has significant resource implications, and implications for local authorities that have competing priorities, not least in relation to programmes of which we all approve, such as those trying to tackle homeless and deal with the decent homes issue.

Nevertheless, I know exactly where my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North is coming from, and I think that the Committee know where I am trying to arrive. In the light of my earlier undertakings on the issue, made on two separate occasions, I very much hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw her new clause.

Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton North, Labour)

I understand the difficulty of doing something about the issue. When I first became a councillor in 1986, the issue was one of the first that I ran up against. It was clear then that it was a difficult problem to resolve. I remember trying to get the issue through the Association of London Authorities when I was council leader. It was impossible because the local authority could not deal with it. The rules were so out of kilter with modern standards that the financial burden of trying to catch up was too great. I recognise the problems; there must be careful thinking about how the issue can be dealt with. Even just the exclusion of kitchens would affect about 15,000 units nationally. That would be manageable.

We must deal with the problem, which affects not only big families. One issue that arises repeatedly in Northampton is that of the young couple who have a council flat. They have one baby, then another. The next thing, they have three children, and they have a one-bedroom flat and cannot get out. They think that the problem is the council being unreasonable, and do not realise that the problem is what the law says. In fact, it is in our hands to make the changes. There has consistently been a problem and we need to find a way forward.

Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park and Kensington North, Labour)

The Minister rightly speaks about the importance of tackling homelessness, the fact that we do not have unlimited resources and the need to be clear about priorities. Does my hon. Friend agree that part of our worry is that, in tackling the problem of homelessness, we have helped to exacerbate the problem of overcrowding? We are trying under the new clause not to get into the repeated situation when, in tackling one serious social problem, we inadvertently and with good intention create another genuine problem, and sometimes one that is even worse than others in the same area.

Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton North, Labour)

I agree, and that is why the problem must be dealt with by secondary legislation. At the same time as setting standards, we must consider how

to manage the prioritisation of people with housing needs because they are overcrowded, not because they are homeless. Such factors have to be taken carefully into account. I see the new clause as a start towards enabling larger families to live in a reasonable degree of decent housing and letting young couples give their

families a decent start in life. I look forward to hearing what my right hon. Friend will have to say on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Paul Clark.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Six o'clock till Thursday 5 February at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.