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 (Sarah Owen) 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 (Ian Lavery) 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 (Maggie Throup), 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.