Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) I beg to move, That this House has
considered the role of homes and buildings in levelling up health
and wellbeing. As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. This is a very important issue. I
understand from others that some other statements are being made at
this moment in time, or thereabouts—well, people cannot always be
in this Chamber when other things are perhaps more engaging. We
have not...Request free trial
(Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the role of homes and buildings in
levelling up health and wellbeing.
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr
Hollobone. This is a very important issue. I understand from
others that some other statements are being made at this moment
in time, or thereabouts—well, people cannot always be in this
Chamber when other things are perhaps more engaging.
We have not had a debate on this issue in Westminster Hall or,
indeed, in Westminster for a year and a half, maybe even two. I
chair the all-party parliamentary group on healthy homes and
buildings and we wanted to refresh the House’s awareness of the
issue, so Westminster Hall seemed the obvious place to come to do
just that. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing
to my application and I am delighted to have secured a debate to
discuss the very important role homes and buildings play in
levelling up health and wellbeing.
I came into the House in 2010, when the independent Marmot review
was taking place. Let me set the scene with a quote from a House
of Commons Library paper:
“The causal link between poor housing conditions and poor health
outcomes is long established. The independent Marmot Review
(2010) said housing is a ‘social determinant of health’ meaning
it can affect physical and mental health inequalities throughout
life. The Marmot Review 10 Years On—Health Equity in England,
recorded an expansion in research on the relationship between
poor housing and health”.
We cannot divorce the two. Quite simply, wellbeing, health and
housing are intertwined. Today’s debate is important because, as
the Government move forward with their policies and strategies,
we need a clear strategy that takes up the issue of housing and
health. The 10-year review of Marmot said:
“Poor-quality housing harms health and evidence shows that
exposure to poor housing conditions (including damp, cold, mould,
noise) is strongly associated with poor health, both physical and
mental. The longer the exposure to poor conditions, including
cold, the greater the impact on mental and physical health.
Specific physical effects are morbidity including respiratory
conditions, cardiovascular disease and communicable disease
transmission, and increased mortality. In terms of mental health
impacts, living in non-decent, cold or overcrowded housing and in
unaffordable housing has been associated with increased stress
and a reduction in a sense of empowerment and control over one’s
life and with depression and anxiety. Children living in
overcrowded homes are more likely to be stressed, anxious and
depressed, have poorer physical health, attain less well at
school and have a greater risk of behavioural problems than those
in uncrowded homes.”
I also chair the all-party parliamentary group on respiratory
health—I am wearing my two chairs’ hats. Furthermore, of the many
all-party parliamentary groups on which we all serve, I also
chair the all-party parliamentary group on vascular and venous
disease. Again, these issues are key. That is why the debate is
so important.
Let me spend some time on the hazards. Across England, Yorkshire
and the Humber are the regions with the highest proportion of
homes with category 1 hazards, at 15%. The east had pretty
damning figures as well. The figure for Northern Ireland, which
concerned me greatly, was that 9% of homes had a problem. The
midlands was at 13%, the north-west 12% and the south-east and
London had the lowest proportion. I find that hard to believe,
considering some of the information I am aware of. I see that the
hon. Member for Luton North () is present to speak on behalf
of the Labour party, and some figures from others’ constituencies
may contradict what is being said. An estimated 18% of homes in
Wales had a category 1 hazard. Given the busy job that I do in my
office as an elected MP, I know that mould growth in houses—be
they Housing Executive houses back home, housing associations or
private rentals—affects people’s health.
The hon. Member for Wansbeck () asked how the Government’s levelling-up policy
planned to tackle
“illnesses directly linked to living in cold, damp and dangerous
conditions.”
The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and
Social Care, the hon. Member for Erewash (), replied that it was an
important issue and that a
“decent home can promote good health and protect from illness and
harm.”—[Official Report, 19 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 12.]
All those things set the scene for where we are today and why it
is so important that we move forward in a constructive and
positive fashion. Most of us spend over 90% of our time indoors,
so the nation’s homes and buildings should positively contribute
to our physical and mental health and wellbeing, and not in any
way diminish it.
The covid-19 pandemic highlighted prevailing health inequalities
in our society. The most vulnerable are more likely to live in
unhealthy homes that are damp, energy-inefficient, noisy, poorly
ventilated and crowded. The inextricable link between our health
and wellbeing, and the homes and buildings where we work, rest
and play, is clear—never more so than during the pandemic. There
were a great many negatives to the pandemic, and it emphasised
some of the areas where improvement can take place. Having to
spend more time in our homes, with many more people working
remotely, emphasised the impact that our homes and buildings have
on our health. Unhealthy housing impacts on economic growth,
business performance, educational attainment, life chances,
climate change and our nation’s health and wellbeing. Therefore,
it makes sense to join up policy thinking, frameworks and
standards and to ensure that all future housing, net zero and
health policies do not contribute to, cause or exacerbate poor
health and wellbeing.
The current energy and cost of living crises will only increase
the problems caused by unhealthy homes and buildings. It is like
a double whammy, because as the energy crisis hits and prices
increase, that puts pressure on landlords, tenants and families
from sides that they were perhaps not expecting. Many charities
and other bodies across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland predict—I hope they are wrong—a record number of
excess winter deaths this year linked to thermal inefficiency in
the housing stock. We must try to prevent deaths and ensure that
they do not become a critical issue, although all the pointers
seem to indicate that that will happen. There is strong evidence
to support the idea that poor-quality and unhealthy homes cause
or exacerbate poor health, thereby placing more pressure on our
NHS.
Like others in this Chamber, I believe that if we can have early
diagnosis and stop things happening in homes, we can improve
further down the line when we do not have the major health
problems that come off the back of poor housing. The Building
Research Establishment, or BRE, estimated that in 2010 poor
housing cost the NHS £2.5 billion in first-year treatment
costs—it is a big figure. Again, that indicates exactly where the
issues are and why it is so important that every step is taken to
address them. Building design, the retrofitting of buildings and
the renovation of the current housing stock should adopt a
holistic approach.
(Tiverton and Honiton)
(LD)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. I
agree with him that the places we call home can have a huge
impact on our health and wellbeing, particularly given the amount
of time that we spend in them. In rural areas such as my part of
Devon, that is even more pronounced, as buildings tend to be
older, which means that they are often less energy-efficient and
lack modern insulation. Does the hon. Member agree that the key
to protecting people’s health and wellbeing is to ensure that
buildings, and particularly our homes, are properly
insulated?
I fully support that. I am probably of a greater age than nearly
everybody in this Chamber, and I remember when we had not heard
of insulation. We know about it today, and it is clearly part of
having healthy homes. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that
intervention, which sets the scene for what we need to do. I look
to the Minister for a positive response.
Energy efficiency, indoor air quality, ventilation, lighting and
acoustics are all clearly big issues, and the health, comfort and
wellbeing of residents should be placed at the heart of good
building and infrastructure planning. I understand that the
Government have a policy to ensure that new builds adhere to
those conditions to ensure the betterment that we want to see,
but we must also address the question of homes that do not have
those things, which brings me to insulation. There must be a plan
of action. Will the Minister give us some indication of what the
Government are doing to help buildings that do not come up to
that standard?
I am very pleased to see the shadow Minister in her place, and I
look forward to her contribution. I also look forward to the
Minister’s contribution, and I wish him well in his new role.
UK Green Building Council research found that 75% of new
developments have poor thermal quality and performance—the very
issue that the hon. Gentleman raised. To level up and reduce
health inequalities, the Government must commit to deliver higher
standards, and performance must be measured rather than just
designed. It is very easy—I say this respectfully—to have a plan
of action, but we also need the action. Again, I look forward to
the Minister’s response.
We need to futureproof the built environment. New building and
planning law must be designed and reformed to be fit for our
long-term future. Some 85% of our homes will still exist in 2050.
It is a sobering thought that the homes that are built today are
there for a long time, so let us make sure energy efficiency,
wellbeing and health implications are all part of an intricate
system.
To level up, we need a national retrofitting strategy focused on
delivering health and wellbeing. The Building Research
Establishment estimates that poor housing in England costs £18.6
billion per annum. That affects the health of thousands of
people. Again, that is really worrying.
The subject of the debate is critical for people’s health. Health
and wellbeing must now be placed at the heart of Government
housing, environment, skills, planning and energy policy in order
to level up and reduce the UK’s health inequalities. There is a
collateral burden on our healthcare, education and public
services.
I thank the Library staff for their background notes, which
greatly enhance my knowledge of the subject and add to the
debate. They refer to a number of things, including housing and
covid-19, which we all, as elected representatives, know about.
We must also look at housing and dementia. I am sure it is no
different for other Members, but I have more constituents than
ever being diagnosed with dementia and Alzheimer’s. The
population is living longer. That does not always mean that
people with Alzheimer’s or dementia are of a certain age, of
course, but the fact is that most of them are. There are some
things that we need to do about housing and dementia. I have also
never seen so many people with mental health issues. Covid-19,
dementia and mental health are three things that need to be
correlated with housing and health.
The all-party parliamentary group for healthy homes and buildings
is calling on the Government and the Minister to take forward its
recommendations in its “Building our Future: Laying the
Foundations for Healthy Homes and Buildings” white paper, to
adopt a more holistic and joined-up approach to tackle the
problem of unhealthy homes and buildings in Britain, and to adopt
Lord Crisp’s Healthy Homes Bill. I am sure that the Minister is
very aware of that. He might wish to comment now. The white paper
sets a clear direction and has a clear focus, which is helpful. I
always make my comments in a constructive fashion; I am in the
business, as we all are, of solutions, not negativity. If we
highlight the issues, we can highlight the solutions.
has called for a joined-up,
holistic approach to healthy homes, health and wellbeing in the
context of the Government’s levelling-up agenda—which I know the
Government are committed to and which I welcome—the Government’s
heat and buildings strategy, the decent homes standard review,
the Building Safety Act 2022 and updated planning reforms. Those
are five things into which the Government have a direct
input.
We must also recognise the cost benefits of improving and
levelling up our homes and communities, to remove health
inequalities and positively contribute to the climate agenda. We
cannot ignore climate change; it is a reality. When we build our
homes, we must recognise that we need more energy efficiency. We
want to meet the Government’s net zero 2050 target, to which this
United Kingdom is committed.
We also want to commit to introduce legislation that addresses
the growing health problems caused or exacerbated by the UK’s
unhealthy homes and buildings. I watched a news story on flats in
London. I just could not believe that anybody could ever live
healthily in some of those properties, with the decay and mould
growth. The danger to people was quite real.
We must also act to reduce health inequalities right across this
great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—I am
ever mindful that the Minister is directly responsible only for
England—and ensure that Britain’s homes and buildings do not
cause or exacerbate poor health and wellbeing. The cost to
society and the NHS is far too vast, and it is the poorest in our
society who are particularly affected; it always is. I have a
duty—we all do—to help those who need help most, and those are
often the poorest in our society.
We must also enshrine a clear definition of health and wellbeing
in future legislation. The healthy homes and buildings APPG white
paper referenced the World Health Organisation’s definition of
health as
“a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being”.
A healthy home is a safe home. However, at present, many homes
are unsafe. I have some information from a group that I work with
back home, Electrical Safety First, which gave me some stats for
England. In England alone, there are five fires every week caused
by electrical installations in homes. Electricity causes the
majority of house fires, accounting for 53.4% of all accidental
dwelling fires. I have also worked with a good friend, a fella
called Michael Hilland, who was an electrical contractor. He no
longer has his business, but he advises. I thank him and his
organisation for the information.
Electrical Safety First believes that house fires can be reduced
by mandating periodic electrical safety checks in homes across
the United Kingdom. That is already the case for the private
rented sector, and it should be for all housing associations, and
indeed for the Housing Executive, which we have back home.
However, enforcement measures do not go far enough. In the social
rented sector, tenants will soon be protected. However, clarity
is needed about whether electrical safety checks will cover
installations and appliances, and also whether landlords will be
given statutory powers to undertake electrical safety checks. I
look to the Minister for some direction on that.
In the owner-occupier sector, there are currently no electrical
safety protections. That is concerning, given that owner-occupied
housing is likely to have the most dated electrical wiring, and
houses a greater proportion of the elderly population, who are
more vulnerable to electrical safety risks. The fact is, our
mobility decreases as we get older. If we are living in a house
that may be outdated or, indeed, where it takes time to get up
and down the stairs or time to get out of the house, then, when
it comes to electrical safety, more action needs to be taken.
The issue is particularly concerning because the owner-occupier
sector makes up the largest housing tenure, accounting for some
65% of all households in England. As a result, the majority of
households have no statutory protections from electrical safety
risks. Again, I ask the Minister: what can be done? I know he
will be positive in his response, and I appreciate that in
advance, but I need to have the assurance in Hansard that the
Government will take on board the things we are outlining. In
total, across England, that means that some 15 million households
have no statutory protection from electrical safety risks. That
is a concerning figure. Data from the London Fire Brigade found
that a greater number of owner-occupiers had experienced a fire
than social and private renters combined. Again, that indicates a
greater onus to try to sort out owner-occupiers and give them
some guidance over what can be done to ensure they are safe and
in no danger.
Separately, while there are provisions for vulnerable customers
to receive free gas safety checks, no analogous provisions exist
for electrical safety checks. I suggest that it is time to put
electrical safety checks on the same level as gas safety checks
for the simple reason of the number of fires and the dangers that
are caused. I believe this must all be taken into
consideration.
Health and housing are and always have been linked. That is why
this debate is important. If we are to move forward and improve
the health of our nation—which, as my party’s health
spokesperson, I am happy to promote—housing must be an integral
part of that. I do not think we can divorce the two issues; they
come intertwined, hand in hand, together. If one defines a
person’s basic needs, the right to a healthy home is surely
fundamental.
Healthy homes and buildings are not simply those where there is a
lack of ill health; a healthy home should mean homes and
buildings that maximise the occupants’ physical, mental and
social wellbeing. In a nation where mental health, anxiety, covid
and advancing diseases have all grown in number, the focus of
future housing policy must now shift to health creation. That is
why this is an important debate. I hope the Minister will be able
to give us some reassurance. We must not look at ill health
prevention alone. Ill health prevention must become part of the
strategy.
Delivering healthy homes and places is vital to levelling up our
communities, towns and cities. This must be integrated together.
Health and Housing—the two Departments must work constructively
together in a positive fashion. Healthy homes and buildings will
make Britain healthier, save money and contribute to increased
educational attainment and wealth creation.
In conclusion, I urge the Minister to support the White Paper and
the recommendations put forward by the APPG on healthy homes and
buildings, and to place healthy housing at the heart of the
Government’s levelling-up agenda. I know that the Minister will
have had a chance to look at the recommendations made back in
2018; they are as relevant today as they were then. Those
recommendations show a strategy and a way forward. I look forward
to hearing from the Minister, the shadow Minister, the hon.
Member for Luton North, and others contributing.
1.54pm
(Coventry North West)
(Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford () for securing this important debate and for his
excellent speech. I could not agree more. The Departments for
Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and of Health and Social
Care—health and home—need to work more closely together.
This debate is about an important issue that affects many of my
constituents in Coventry North West. In my city, a recent study
showed that high air pollution contributed to one in 18 deaths of
people over 30 in 2019. That equates to more than 150 deaths in a
single year. It is totally unacceptable. We know how damaging
pollution is to children and their long-term health, but not
enough is being done to improve air quality. The evidence is
unambiguous. Those exposed to high levels of pollution are at a
much greater risk of respiratory disease, learning disabilities
and brain damage. It is inexcusable.
Despite that, homes are being built alongside the busy Tamworth
Road in my constituency, with more families moving in every day.
As lorries and cars block up the road at all times, children are
forced to play in spaces where they are constantly inhaling
toxins and fumes. The Government must set high standards, and set
councils free to build social housing within communities on
brownfield sites. It cannot be right that children with their
entire lives ahead of them are constantly exposed to such
dangerous chemicals.
Giving developers too much power means they often fail to
establish the risk of developments, which can become incredibly
dangerous for the safety of our young people. Two years ago, an
11-year-old was killed on Tamworth Road after a car struck her.
Such tragic events are preventable. When building homes, the
safety and health of our young children must be prioritised.
Whether we use pavement barriers, bollards or slower speed
limits, it is vital that we find ways to protect those who live
alongside busy roads.
Tamworth Road is not the only part of my constituency with new
homes that are exposed to high levels of pollution. A new
development in Spon End will see 750 homes built next to an
extremely busy dual carriageway. Those homes will be occupied by
families from across my constituency. I will always fight to make
sure that no child grows up with avoidable health problems. The
Government and the developers know how dangerous this is, yet
they are failing children on their watch. I urge the Government
to legislate to bolster the chances of young children across the
country. Every child deserves an equal chance in life. Inadequate
housing is taking that chance away from them, and it needs to
end.
To reduce the levels of pollution in our towns and cities, all
new homes must be built as efficiently and sustainably as
possible. In practice, that means electrical charging points
built into homes to make it as easy as possible to have an
electric car. Solar panels must be standard in all newly built
homes. That is how we can increase air quality to make sure the
next generation of young people do not develop the same ailments
that plague so many across the country.
Although pollution is a serious risk, poor-quality homes are
equally damaging to health. When I speak to medical professionals
across my community, they tell me that the health impact of poor
housing is clear. Children who live in damp and mouldy homes are
more likely to develop or experience trigger symptoms of asthma
and adult respiratory problems than children who live in homes
without those issues. We know the solution: warm and dry homes
improve general health outcomes, and reduce the risk of
respiratory, cardiovascular and other health conditions.
The Government must legislate to make sure that developers are
held responsible. The current planning free-for-all gives big
developers too much power, and too often they do not know what
type of housing is required in what parts of our towns and
cities. Housing has a huge influence on the mental health and
wellbeing of so many families in my constituency. They are made
to live in crowded homes far outside their communities, with
limited access to shops, GP surgeries and other facilities. It is
no wonder that we have a mental health crisis.
The Government must empower local authorities and build
sustainable homes to reduce generational health inequalities in a
way that will have a real impact for decades to come. I hope that
the Minister is able to comment on some of my points in his
response.
1.59pm
(Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr
Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford () on securing this valuable debate on an area of
importance to all our constituents, and one that too often flies
under the radar. He speaks with compassion and experience about
the link between health and housing. I also thank the other
speakers this afternoon, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton
() and my hon. Friend the
Member for Coventry North West (), for their reasoned and
insightful comments.
Whatever melodrama is happening outside, this issue matters to
the people we represent. When it comes to the nation’s health, we
know that prevention is unequivocally better than cure, in terms
of the human cost and the toll on individuals, but also in terms
of the sound management of public finances.
We see the impact of under-investment in social and primary care
settings on our acute hospitals. We know that investment to
tackle the scourges of public health, such as smoking and
obesity, ultimately pays for itself in the long run, as well as
helping people to live happier, healthier and longer lives. It
should not be controversial to aspire to want that for our
constituents. It is common sense, not nanny-statism, as some
would have it. It is no different from other factors that impact
public health and wellbeing, which are many, varied and not
always immediately obvious, as we have heard today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West spoke
eloquently and passionately, from her considerable experience in
the public health field. We know that diseases such as cancers,
diabetes, cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease cause
around 89% of deaths in the UK. The House of Lords Select
Committee on the Long-term Sustainability of the NHS concluded
that:
“These conditions are also, to a significant extent, preventable
and the costs, in human, social and economic terms, are largely
avoidable.”
The World Health Organisation has made it clear that poverty is
closely linked with these diseases. Vulnerable and socially
disadvantaged people get sicker and die sooner than people of
higher social positions. As the hon. Member for Strangford
rightly said, we saw that play out starkly with the covid-19
pandemic. We need to see action taken to close those health
inequalities.
Risk factors associated with poverty and deprivation include
tobacco use, physical inactivity, unhealthy diet and the harmful
use of alcohol. Economic and social conditions contribute
significantly to levels of preventable ill health. The levels of
health inequality in the UK were already too great but,
shamefully, they are just getting worse. According to the Office
for National Statistics, in 2018 to 2020, males living in the
most deprived areas were living almost 10 years less than males
living in the least deprived areas, with the gap at around eight
years for females. Both sexes have seen statistically significant
increases in inequality and life expectancy at birth since 2015
to 2017.
This is not necessarily about regions, or differences from one
end of the country to the other. In my constituency of Luton
North, we see the difference in life expectancy from one end of
the town to the other, and that is to say nothing of the
consequences of poverty and deprivation for mental health. Being
deprived is not just about a lack of money. It is a lack of
quality of life. It is community insecurity and a lack of
resources overall, whether that is about exposure to stressor
such as violence and crime, or a lack of public green space.
Public Health England has stated that:
“Insecure, poor quality and overcrowded houses cause stress,
anxiety and depression, and exacerbates existing mental health
conditions. 19% of adults living in poor quality housing in
England have poor mental health outcomes.”
I feel that figure might be a gross under-representation. We also
know that the research shows that people with a mental health
problem are much more likely to have preventable physical health
conditions as well.
What can be done? It would be disingenuous of me to stand here
and say that poor mental and physical public health could be
remedied by action on housing alone, but it is a key part of the
puzzle of reducing the UK’s entrenched geographic, ethnic and
demographic inequalities. That being said, there are things that
the Government can and should do now, which have the potential to
have a rapid and significant impact on ending the creation of
unhealthy homes.
In the longer term, we need to overhaul the complex, fragmented
system that allows new homes and places to be built that do not
guarantee that all new homes provide for residents’ basic human
needs, such as access to green space and local services, and
clean air. We need developments that are guided by communities,
with input from public health professionals on design, and proper
infrastructure to support them, whether that is about encouraging
active travel, access to green space, public leisure facilities
or even allotments and communal vegetable gardens—although do not
let me anywhere near those, because I am not green-fingered.
We need to do much better in setting standards for developments
across the country and looking at methods for how they can be
delivered. Research by Public Health England in 2017 clearly
demonstrated the relationship between the built environment and
health and the positive impact provision of these basic amenities
can have.
A matter of more immediate concern is the liberalisation of
permitted development rights by the Government in 2013, which has
had a significant detrimental effect on the quality of dwellings
produced as a result. Ministers both past and present have
claimed—and future ones possibly will—that liberalisation of
planning and permitted development rights removes unnecessary
impediments to development. However, the evidence overwhelming
shows that the impact of extending permitted development rights
to convert office, commercial and industrial units into
supposedly residential spaces—although I think very few of them
could be described as such—is negative.
We have seen a huge increase in poor-quality housing that lacks
space and natural light, and there are accompanying implications
for public health and wellbeing as a result. The Government’s own
research has shown that schemes created through permitted
development projects are far less likely to meet national space
standards and far more likely to have reduced access to natural
daylight and sunlight. Space and daylight are the very basics.
The former Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local
Government’s housing and safety rating system states that
“lack of space has been linked to psychological distress and
various mental disorders”
and problems such as
“accidents and spread of contagious disease.”
Some residential conversions are as small as 13 square metres,
which is a third of the minimum space standard recommended by
Government. Terminus House in Harlow, a former office block
converted into hundreds of dwellings, was described as a “human
warehouse”. That sounds like something from the Victorian era,
not 2022. The Government’s Building Better, Building Beautiful
Commission’s final report also concluded that:
“In some instances, we have inadvertently permissioned future
slums.”
The 2018 Raynsford review of planning also concluded in a
reference to the liberalisation of permitted development rights
that:
“Government policy has led directly to the creation of slum
housing. Such slums will require immense public investment,
either to refurbish them to a proper standard or to demolish
them. Morally, economically and environmentally it is a failed
policy.”
That is a damning indictment of this policy and the Government’s
approach to housing. In the light of all we have heard in this
debate and the examples I have outlined from reports commissioned
by the Government themselves, I would be particularly keen to
hear from the Minister what possible justification there is for
retaining these liberalised permitted development rights in their
current form.
Reducing socioeconomic and health disparities in this country
cannot happen without serious consideration of the role of
housing and planning in creating buildings and communities that
promote healthy lifestyles. We owe it to communities up and down
this country to make positive changes a reality. They will not be
achieved by the proposed deregulation in planning in investment
zones. We have seen from the experience of permitted developments
that further liberalisation is a cowboy developers’ charter for
poor-quality, profit-maximising estates. I look forward to
hearing from the Minister how we will approach the issue of
promoting health and wellbeing in new developments in these
zones.
2.08pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up,
Housing and Communities ()
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford () on securing this debate and pay tribute to his
tireless work and that of the healthy homes and buildings APPG in
improving the conditions of those living or working in
poor-quality, unhealthy environments.
We can all agree that the past two years have brought into sharp
focus just how integral our homes and communities are to our
physical and mental wellbeing. It has underscored the imperative
of the APPG’s mission to tackle poor-quality housing and our
collective endeavour to ensure that everyone in our society lives
somewhere decent, warm, safe and secure. That mission is only
becoming more pertinent as winter fast approaches and as we act
to help people struggling with the rising cost of living. I
understand that the Healthy Homes Bill had its Second Reading in
July, and today I hope to outline how the Government are already
dealing with many of the issues highlighted in that Bill.
Before I turn to levelling up, I pay tribute to the hon. Member
for Coventry North West () and the shadow Minister,
the hon. Member for Luton North (), for making two excellent
speeches. Both their contributions were fantastic. There was very
little I would disagree with in either of their speeches. That
demonstrates the broad consensus across this House for dealing
with the challenges we face.
I want to reiterate the Government’s commitment to levelling up,
which remains a key priority for the UK Government. We know that
the UK’s economic challenges are hitting some places harder than
others. As well as the immediate Government help that we need to
therefore provide to those communities, we need to build places
up to help them become stronger and more economically resilient.
With that in mind, the Government have set out a UK-wide aim to
boost our GDP growth.
We recognise that the UK economy is made up of many different
local economies with different characteristics, opportunities and
challenges. We therefore aim to achieve and sustain strong
economic growth by unleashing the untapped potential of places
around the UK. That does not mean we want to dampen down the
success of London or the growth of the south-east. We want to
grow the whole economy, focusing on every part of the country. We
want to ensure that we support growing parts of the economy—for
example, life sciences in the north-west of England, advanced
manufacturing in the midlands, semiconductors in Wales, renewable
energy in East Anglia and fintech in Northern Ireland.
It goes without saying that everybody deserves to live in a safe
and secure home. As hon. Members know, the decent homes standard
has been in place since 2001. It set the minimum standard of
quality to be met for all dwellings provided by registered
providers of social housing. The decent homes standard sets out
four criteria for evaluating decency. It requires that homes are
free of serious hazards, are in a reasonable state of repair,
have reasonably modern facilities such as kitchens and bathrooms,
and have efficient heating and effective insulation to provide a
minimum degree of thermal comfort.
The regulator of social housing requires that social rented homes
are maintained by landlords to at least the quality set out in
the decent homes standard. Good progress has been made on
ensuring that social rented sector homes meet the standard, with
non-decency in the sector at around 11% in 2020, although I
acknowledge the regional disparities in those rates, which was
highlighted by the hon. Member for Strangford.
In the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, the Department
published the social housing Green Paper. During the
consultation, we heard that the decent homes standard was no
longer fully effective. That is why in the social housing White
Paper we committed to review the decent homes standard to ensure
that it works for residents and landlords. Part 1 of the DHS
review concluded in September 2021 and established that there is
a case for change. Further details on taking forward the review
will be set out in due course.
The Government are equally committed to ensuring a fair deal for
private renters. Over the past two years, we have introduced
regulations that will make privately rented homes safer in
respect of their electrical installations —again, a point focused
on extensively and eloquently by the hon. Member for
Strangford—and through the provision of smoke and carbon monoxide
alarms.
We have also reviewed the housing health and safety rating
system—the tool used to assess conditions in all homes. That will
enable local authorities to take more effective, targeted
enforcement when they discover health and safety hazards. Last
week, our current Prime Minister re-committed to the ban on
section 21 no-fault evictions to protect tenants. We are, of
course, carefully considering the next steps to support the
rental market.
Several hon. Members talked about the importance of energy
efficiency and decarbonisation, including the hon. Member for
Tiverton and Honiton () in his intervention. As I
said, we will make sure that rented homes are warm and dry. To
meet that aim, we will deliver our net zero target, requiring all
of our housing stock to become more energy-efficient. My
Department is working closely on that with colleagues from the
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
Improving the energy performance of our buildings presents an
opportunity to provide warm, well ventilated spaces and healthy
environments in which people can live and work. That will avoid
physical illnesses such as heart and lung conditions—again,
issues that were spoken about passionately by the hon. Member for
Coventry North West and the shadow Minister.
The journey to net zero buildings starts with better energy
performance and improving the energy efficiency of homes and
buildings. It is a no-regrets action. That is why we are
committed to upgrading as many homes as possible to energy
performance certificate band C by 2035, as a cost-effective,
practical and affordable step. Building on this, we have
committed to consider setting a long-term regulatory standard to
improve social housing to EPC band C, and we will consult on this
in 2023.
Improving the energy efficiency of homes is also the best
long-term method of reducing energy costs for vulnerable
households and those living in fuel poverty. Our target is to
ensure that as many fuel-poor homes as is reasonably practicable
achieve a minimum energy rating of band C by 2030. To this end,
we are investing £12 billion in Help to Heat schemes to make
people’s homes warmer and cheaper to heat. We will deliver
upgrades to more than half a million homes in the coming years
through our social housing decarbonisation fund, the home upgrade
grant scheme and the energy company obligation scheme. To future
proof buildings, the heat and building strategy also commits us
to considering overheating risk and indoor air quality when
developing future decarbonisation policies.
Further to this, from 2025, the future homes standard will ensure
that new homes produce at least 75% less CO2 emissions than those
built to the 2013 standards. That represents a considerable
improvement in energy efficiency standards for new homes. In
December 2021, we introduced an uplift in energy efficiency
standards that delivers a meaningful reduction in carbon
emissions and provides a stepping stone to the future homes
standard in 2025.
Looking towards health and safety, the Building Safety Act 2022
established a more stringent regulatory regime in design and
construction, strengthening building regulations requirements and
their oversight. The Act introduces a Building Safety Regulator,
which will make buildings safer by enforcing a stringent new
regulatory regime for high-rise residential and other in-scope
buildings. The regulator will oversee the safety and performance
of all buildings and increase the competence of those working
across the built environment.
The Building Safety Regulator was established in shadow form in
January 2020, and it is intended that the new regime will come
fully into force in April 2024, with interim steps, such as
requiring accountable people to register their buildings, coming
in the meantime. Residents can be confident that their safety is
a critical objective of the new regulator. The regime also
introduces new oversight requirements during the build phase.
This means that before proceeding to the next stage, the
developer must satisfy the Building Safety Regulator that they
have met the relevant requirements in the building regulations.
Between these stages, the Building Safety Regulator can carry out
on-site inspections or request information about the building
work.
On planning, our policy and decisions should promote an effective
use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while
safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and
healthy living conditions. Through reforming the planning system,
we will champion how beautiful design can enhance health and
wellbeing, and encourage sustainable development accompanied by
infrastructure that communities will truly benefit from. Building
more homes is a fundamental task for the Government and local
leaders. The measures we are already delivering—for example,
those set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—are a
significant step in improving the way planning operates, but we
want to go further in specific areas of potential through
investment zones, for example, to deliver the attractive,
well-designed new communities we all want to see.
I am pleased by the Minister’s comprehensive response; it is very
helpful. I will ask two questions. I said in my speech that
landlords need to be incentivised, if there is a methodology to
make that happen, to improve their homes. I appreciate what will
happen going forward, but we have so many homes in the United
Kingdom—18.5 million—that need to be retrofitted. I am ever
mindful that this issue crosses different Departments and may not
be the direct responsibility of the Minister when it comes to
skills and a national training scheme.
The hon. Member for St Ives () could not be here today
because he had to return to his constituency. He said to me the
other day that those who are in construction are getting older,
and as they get older we need a new group of young workers coming
through who have the skills to retrofit. Those are two questions.
I am not sure if they are the direct responsibility of the
Minister, but I know that he will deliver them to the person who
has that responsibility.
I thank the hon. Member for that important point. It is not
directly my responsibility, but it is the kind of thing that we
must work to address collectively across Government.
In a former role, I was the Minister with responsibility for
construction, and we looked at the contribution that modern
methods of construction and off-site construction can deliver,
both in speeding up the delivery of the extra new, nice
affordable homes for families that we need, and in freeing up
skilled labourers to retrofit the older housing stock and to do
some of the other work that we need to be done, because skills
are in short supply. It is therefore important that we have a
solid skills strategy. That is something that my Department and
Ministers in BEIS are particularly keen to look at and work
together on to ensure that we have a consistent approach that
helps to deliver what we both want to see in this area.
Turning to one of the final areas, design and placemaking, the
Government seek to ensure that new homes and places are designed
to support the health and wellbeing of residents and communities.
The national planning policy framework, which local planning
authorities must adhere to as a matter of law, is clear that
planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy,
inclusive and safe places. Those should support healthy
lifestyles, especially where that would address identified local
health and wellbeing needs. That could be through the provision
of safe and accessible green infrastructure, local shops, and
layouts that encourage walking and cycling.
The framework also refers to the nationally described space
standard. That means that local councils have the option to set
minimum space standards for new homes within their areas. The
national model design code asks that local councils give
consideration to the internal layouts within new homes, aiming to
maximise access to natural daylight.
Through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, we are
introducing a duty for all local councils to produce a design
code at the spatial scale of their authority area. The measure
will empower communities to have their say on what their area
will look like through working with local planning authorities
and neighbourhood planning groups to set clear design standards
through design codes. We have also set up the Office for Place
within the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities,
which will support councils and communities to turn their vision
of what they like into local standards that all new developments
should meet, helping to create beautiful, healthy, successful and
enduring places.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, and
particularly the hon. Member for Strangford for securing today’s
important debate. There is a huge amount of consensus from all
parties on the need to address the issues that have been
highlighted today. I speak not just for my Department but for the
wider Government in reiterating our commitment to building the
sustainable green homes and communities of the future. That is a
vision that I know is shared by all.
Will the Minister give way before he sits down?
Certainly.
I make these interventions in a constructive fashion, because I
want to have the answers—I think we all do; that is why we are
asking. So far, the Minister has done brilliantly. I understand
that 75% of new homes are not thermally efficient. Will the
Minister confirm that that is the case, and say what steps will
be taken to change that? The reason I ask the question is simply
that it all links into the energy crisis, which has become a fact
of life for all of us. I say that in a very constructive fashion.
I am not trying to catch the Minister out—that is not my purpose.
I would just like a wee bit of clarity on that matter.
I do not have the exact statistics to hand, but, as I said in my
remarks, we are working on updating building regulations and
standards. Putting energy efficiency at the heart of those
standards is an important priority. This is something that my
ministerial colleague in the Department leads on, but I will
ensure that the hon. Member’s views are fed back to him and taken
into account in our discussions.
We all realise that the challenges identified by the APPG are
real, and they are priorities that the Government will address. I
am keen to continue to work with the hon. Gentleman, his
colleagues in the APPG and others across the House to address
those challenges. Even if I am not in this role in a few weeks’
time, I am sure that my successor would be delighted to continue
working with them. These are real challenges that are recognised
across Government; I know that myself and my current ministerial
colleagues are very keen to see them addressed.
(in the Chair)
has 35 minutes to wind up the debate.
2.25pm
Do not tempt me, Mr Hollobone. I am very pleased to have heard
excellent contributions. The hon. Member for Coventry North West
() has a deep interest in the
issue, and very kindly came along to support the debate. The hon.
Member referred to children; that is an issue for us all. I am a
grandfather now; my boys have grown up and we have the next
generation coming through. I am conscious about what we are
building for those children and the grandchildren who come after
them. I know the hon. Member for Luton North () has a young child, so she will
better understand what that means.
The hon. Member for Coventry North West said that no child should
have a health problem and that every child needs an equal start
in life. A society is judged by how it looks after the poor and
the less well off. Those are the key issues of this debate. We
have all grasped that. We understand from the Minister that there
is a deep interest from Government in making that happen.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton () referred to insulation and
upgrading homes. It is retrofitting homes that do not have the
insulation that a new home would have—that is the key issue. We
have to have a programme of not only new homes coming in but
older homes being upgraded.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Luton North, gave a very
knowledgeable, factual and evidence-based contribution that I
thought was very helpful. She referred to respiratory health
problems that are preventable; if someone has a good house it
reduces the risk of those. That is what we are aiming for. We are
trying to reach the stage where those problems do not occur,
because we have taken the precautions and preventive measures
beforehand.
The hon. Member for Luton North referred to preventable health
issues and life expectancy. I thought it was interesting that she
referred to her own constituency, where in one town there can be
people in one set of houses who have respiratory issues and
health problems, and people in a different set of houses who do
not. “A Tale of Two Cities” came to mind. The hon. Member
referred to communities helped by the council. She said she was
not green fingered; I cannot say I am, but I can usually turn my
hand to anything. I live on a farm, so maybe it is more of a
factor for me. She also referred to the lack of space and the
distress, and the impact that has on children and families as a
whole.
I am pleased that the Minister gave such a substantial response,
for which I thank him greatly. I think every one of us will be
encouraged by his knowledgeable responses to the questions we
asked about the direction in which the Government are going. He
said that the decent homes standard would be reviewed and talked
about change, but what is the timescale for that change? Whenever
I take things forward on behalf of constituents, I always ask the
Department to give me a timescale. I hope that the Minister or
whoever it may be—I hope he will still be there—will be able to
come back to us on that.
On a fair deal for private renters, the Minister referred to the
rating system to target enforcement. That is really good in the
context of those who, for whatever reason, decline or respond
slower than they should. He talked about people being “warm, safe
and secure”. If we had to pick three words to sum up this debate
and the targets we are all trying to achieve, they would be warm,
safe and secure. He also referred to net zero and better energy
efficiency, which are all things we would like to see.
With that conclusion, I thank all who have participated. We very
much appreciate the opportunity of today’s debate and the
statements that have been made, and we will follow that up
through the APPG. As always, I thank you, Mr Hollobone, for the
way you chair meetings. We do not often say it, but we appreciate
what you do. We also thank your Hansard staff—well, not your
Hansard staff but our Hansard staff—for their contribution and
those in the APPG who are here in the Gallery for their
contributions and for supporting us in securing this debate. It
did not last as long as we perhaps thought it might, but there
are so many other things happening—I do not know whether people
follow it, but I saw a wee PARLYapp message that said: “Jim
Shannon for PM”. Well, I don’t think so, but there we are.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the role of homes and buildings in
levelling up health and wellbeing.
|