 The final item of business today is a member's business debate on motion number 13774, in the name of Alex Johnson on minimum room sizes in new-build homes. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would be grateful if those members who wish to speak in the debate could please press the request to speak buttons now. I call on Alex Johnson to open the debate. Seven minutes, please, Mr Johnson. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. When is our room not a room? We in this chamber have had cause over recent years, on many occasions, to discuss the concepts of under-occupancy and overcrowding. However, one of the ironic things that was thrown up by that discussion was the amazing court case that went through a Scottish court. At a hearing, a Scottish sheriff dictated that a room could not be classified as a room because it was simply not big enough to be described as a bedroom. How did we get to that extraordinary position? Robert Hutch and Shoebox are just two of the terms that I have heard used to describe the room sizes in modern homes, often by people who have just returned, dejected from a visit to a show home or a new development. I would stress at the outset that not all new homes are like that, of course. Many are delightfully designed, spacious and with excellent amenities, although some of these, I would argue, are in the premium bracket. The overall issue is that there is a trend for modern homes to get smaller. That can be the case when land values are high, such as they are in the north-east, and a developer needs to maximise the number of units on the land to make a project viable. We hear a lot about many houses that need to be built to keep the pace with demand, and that was the point that made loud and clear when I attended the Homes for Scotland conference last week. However, I am sure that I am not alone in being deeply concerned that, in the race to play the numbers game, floor sizes of new properties will be sacrificed in order to maximise the number of units. We need only to look across Europe at the average floor space of newly built homes to illustrate the problem. In Germany, the average house is over 109 sqm of floor space. In Holland, it is over 115 sqm. In Denmark, it is 137 sqm. We need a bit more research here in Scotland before we can have a definitive Scottish figure for that, but one study suggests that the average UK home is now smaller than that, with a little over 76 sqm of floor space. To put that into perspective, just two sqm is the size of a broom cupboard, or a small room with a toilet, or a room with a washing machine, and maybe a drying rack. Four sqm, according to the Royal Institute of British Architects, is equivalent to a single bed—that is not room for a single bed—that is about the size of a single bed. Crucially, for children and students, four sqm is the space that allows you to work at home at a computer. Seven sqm is the equivalent of a galley kitchen, maybe with a coffee table, while eight sqm is the equivalent of a single bedroom, giving room for a guest to stay over perhaps, or more importantly, a room for a child. The long-term effect on people living in homes that are effectively overcrowded at the outset are deeply worrying. For example, studies by researchers at Cambridge University suggest that in extreme cases overcrowded homes can cause physical illnesses such as asthma and even mental illnesses such as depression. The fact that individuals report that they do not have enough space to have quiet time in private may be a contributing factor. Less extreme cases can impact on the social and emotional development of children, while at the same time degrading relationships and making it difficult to entertain guests. In 2009, a study by the Royal Institute of British Architects found that more than half of respondents said that there was not enough space for the furniture that they owned or would like to own. Nearly 70 per cent said that there was not enough storage for their possessions. In one case, a householder had to store his hoover at his mother's house because he did not have a cupboard to keep it in. The weekly shop, with a number of buy-one-get-one free offers, had also thrown limited kitchen space into chaos. The issue is one that does not just affect larger households. It can impact people from all walks of life, from the single person being offered a flat with a so-called mezzanine deck as a bedroom, to the retired person moving into a care home where they have little space to keep their most precious possessions built up over a lifetime. There is some legislation that has some influence on that. For example, homes in multiple occupations, while others influence the situation almost by accident, such as the need to build accessibility, as described in the Scottish Government's technical handbook. I also welcome the discussion paper that will not impact us here in Scotland but was issued by the UK Government last week that proposes a minimum bedroom size of 6.5 sqm, with local authorities free to set higher standards if they wish to do so. However, as I pointed out earlier, 6.5 sqm is not a big room. I appreciate that there are counterarguments for this. For example, the extra space would drive up construction costs and thereby make homes even less affordable and that the demand for larger homes would see fewer units built in available sites. However, quoting again from the Royal Institute of British Architects, they suggest that that need not be the case. Their view is that a home that is 10 per cent bigger need not cost 10 per cent more. They also state that extra space needed need not impact on housing numbers if better design were implemented. I would like to see the Scottish Government, with local authorities, housing professionals and developers, work together to ensure that new properties are not only spatially fit for purpose, but they also form part of a wider urban design that delivers safe, sustainable communities and encourages active lifestyles. When I say active lifestyles, I do not mean the London man who was offered a house where he had to stand on top of his fridge and climb up a ladder in order to get into bed every night, as was recently reported. That is not to say that advances have not been made in the construction of new homes in Scotland. We have, for example, seen the introduction of improved insulation regulations that keep our homes warmer and help to alleviate the threat of fuel poverty. I welcome and support those measures, but if we want to do something about the problem of rubbish housing, then a number of influences will need to pull together and press for change. Whether or not we own our homes or rent them, the quality of housing is vital to us all, and that does not mean only that they are wind and water tight and easy to heat. The room to live is also important. We can deliver this if we collectively take the necessary action. If the Scottish Government will push the issue, it can be certain of support from the Scottish Conservatives. We have now turned to the open debate and speeches of four minutes or so. I thank you very much and good evening, Presiding Officer. First of all, please allow me to thank Alex Johnston for securing today's debate on minimum room size in new-built homes. Mr Malik, could you move your microphone slightly towards you? Many thanks. Thank you. In fact, I would go further and suggest that we also explore the possibility of having a minimum percentage of large family homes in any new development as well, as more and more people choose to look after their elderly families within the family house and also allow their children to stay longer at home, which is a good trend, if I may say so. I also acknowledge the improvements in the construction industry in new-built homes, especially in regards to insulation. These examples are good and use of space in houses as well as outside. However, there are also plenty of bad examples where people would not choose to live if they had sufficient housing and stock in Scotland. We must ensure that minimum standards relating to room sizes, hallways and storage in our homes is secured. For practical reasons, as we spend quite a lot of time in our homes, if you furnish your home, one expects to be able to get in and around the house, which means a reasonable size of rooms, halls and storage space in a given house, not forgetting the outdoor environment that we live in. If we have a set size of what we can call a double bed, then we can set a minimum size for what we can call a double bedroom. We must take account of not only the insulation houses alone, but also we need to have a well-designed home, which addresses the needs of today's families. For example, a number of sockets in any given room, not hidden behind doors or behind furniture, that they should be easy access. Sometimes people forget that we are no longer living in the years that we used to 20 years ago. The demand on our sockets is far more than sometimes we give credit for. I have visited many homes to see all sorts of extension wires and a maze of wires on the floor, making a real hazard for particularly young and elderly. I agree with Alec Johnson. There should be a voluntary code that would be with the maximum space, floor space, storage sizes of homes and their standards and flats and homes must reflect today's and tomorrow's expectations and needs of people in Scotland. If the construction industry cannot come up with a code of practice, perhaps the Scottish Parliament can help them in that direction. One of the things that I must say that Alec Johnson says that how the room sizes need to be appropriate is absolutely crucial, because this affects all sorts of issues, particularly amongst our young. One of the things that I was told that inappropriate housing can actually affect the health of young children, not only in terms of mental health or physical health, but also their educational attainment standards as well, because people do need the room to be able to sit down and study. I do hope that the Government will take on this challenge and try to see how they can help us, but I also just wanted to emphasise the importance of larger family homes as well as appropriate sizes of rooms, because as I say, the trend is changing. It's to be welcomed. We want to look after elderly if we can rather than ask them to go to hospitals or other centres, so I look forward to the Scottish Government's view on this challenge. Thank you very much for that, Presiding Officer. Many thanks. Since I have no more requests in the open debate to speak, could I now invite Mark Obeidgy to respond to the debate? Minister, I can give you seven minutes or so. Thank you. When I originally saw that this member's business debate was taking place, I was a bit pleased but also a little bit intrigued by the motion. I was pleased that the motion gives the recognition that Alex Johnson extended in his speech that, through Scottish building standards, we have significantly improved the energy efficiency standards for new homes. That is something that we can all welcome. We all have in this chamber because it makes them warmer and helps households with fuel bills. In terms of delivering carbon dioxide abatement, not only is it helpful but, since this October, our standards are once again the best minimum standards in the UK. However, I was intrigued that the motion considered that Scotland has no minimum space standards or built-in storage for new homes. Today, through this debate and my response, I would like to dispel the myth and, as building standards forms part of my portfolio, I would like to say a little bit about what those national standards in Scotland are. However, I would just want to draw a distinction between what can be governed by building standards and what can be dealt with more widely. Clearly, buildings that were approved under building standards regimes in the past will continue to be with us for some time. In particular, that can have issues for electricals and other areas where the needs of society have changed but the homes need to catch up to adapt. We apply building standards at the point of construction. Since the mid-1980s, through the Scottish building standards system and now within the domestic technical handbook, we actually have minimum space standards that are the best of any of the jurisdictions in the UK. The framework that is presented consists of defined sizes of appliances and furniture combined with clearly defined activity spaces. That means that the floor area of habitable rooms, as well as main bathrooms and kitchens, will have to be of a reasonable size. Allied to that, more recently, we have introduced a measure that means that one habitable room is to have a floor area of at least 12 square metres. In addition to the measures that create minimum floor area, there are many other provisions that contribute to the physical and mental wellbeing of householders. Those include guaranteed provisions for natural light, for limiting noise in attached homes and rooms within homes, ventilation and adequate heating, to name but a few of our standards. All of that means that any new home in Scotland, when allied to other supporting legislation—water bylaws, for example—should be able to adequately and satisfactorily perform the function of a dwelling. Unlike Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland have nothing that is quite as comprehensive in each of their sets of devolved building regulations. However, I acknowledge that those regulations are bedrock minimum standards, but, as I said before, building regulations cannot be the panacea for all ills. For example, they are not going to stop a small house being occupied by more people than it was ever designed for. Over-occupancy and under-occupancy are both issues of housing policy, or it will dictate how people use their homes once they move in, how they are maintained by owners and so on and so forth. Thank you very much for taking an intervention. There were just two points that I wanted to reiterate. One is that the Scottish communities now are fundamentally changing that more and more adults are staying with their families and children are staying longer with their families. That is one aspect that I want you to take on board for me, please. When I talk about percentages of larger homes, the second point that I was raising was an issue about safety. A child's room can have as many as 10 demands of electricity sockets. That is just average. We are not addressing that, and I think that it would be helpful if we could address those, please. I can give an undertaking on the latter issue to my officials and go over that aspect of the building systems for new build. Clearly, we want properties that are being built now to meet the demands of people and to leave aside the issue of retrofitting the more heritage-based properties. The issue that Hans Alamallek had raised on the mix of homes that I was about to come to, I think that it is important in dealing with some of the big societal issues that we have, in particular the ageing population changing habitation, which also means more people living alone than ever before. We need to take a cross-government approach on that. Just as building standards have been involved in the Government's discussions on climate change action, we have to be involved in our discussions on how we deal with the ageing society. I accept that point and I take it on board. To go back to the flow of where I was, there are those minimum standards. There is also now the suggestion of a voluntary code for space standards that would give benchmark for industry to deliver good practice. I want to caution on the development of any approach that would produce purely arbitrary floor areas without the understanding that I referred to of how it is going to be used and how people are going to interact, which could make houses larger and less affordable in the short term. Although, over the longer term, the market might be able to adjust, that could present serious difficulties for housing supply, as well as pressures on the types of homes that might be being built. We need to be aware of that. I think that it is an unusual presentation in this chamber for Alex Johnson to come here and recommend that the Scottish Government intervene so firmly in industry, in the market. If this is his conversion to state socialism, I am surprised and blown away, but I suspect that he might generally usually prefer more voluntary codes. There is a document like that out there at the moment. It is called Housing for Varying Needs. It is available online and it is a good practice document that social housing providers and local authorities in Scotland have to build to if they wish to access grant funding from the Scottish Government. It functions in a similar way to the space standards and the domestic technical handbook. It also sets out a framework that determines the size of a home. However, because it is a good practice document and not firm building regulations, it consists of defined sizes of an even greater range of appliances and furniture combined with defined activity spaces and circulation paths, creating a much broader set of guidance and good practice about the structure of a home. It certainly is the case that this could be disseminated more widely. Margaret Burgess and I would be very interested in hearing any views from the industry or otherwise about how the document could be adopted more widely. To conclude, I welcome the debate. It gives us a chance to explore the possibilities of space standards, to bust some myths and to recognise what building standards can deliver. I certainly agree with the concept of a voluntary code. It would result in good floor space and storage standards in flats and houses in north-east Scotland and across the country. Above all, we have to make sure that we have a positive impact on everything that we do on housing supply, so that we have the right number of homes being built in Scotland and, indeed, the right composition of those homes, too. I thank Alex Johnston for bringing us the debate, even if I have not been able to entirely agree with him. Thank you, minister. That concludes Alex Johnston's debate on minimum room sizes in new-built homes. I now close this meeting of Parliament.