with less regulation are not the answer to a crisis born out of an administrative buildup of cases.’ Photograph: Peter Byrne/PA
On the same day that better protection for UK renters was announced (Report, 17 May), it was disturbing to read that basic safety rules could be overlooked for asylum seekers’ accommodation (Asylum seekers in England and Wales to lose basic protections in move to cut hotel use, 16 May).
The way to address the pressure on asylum accommodation would be to tackle the huge backlog of people waiting for decisions rather than throwing regulations out the window and potentially putting people’s lives and safety at risk. No one in our country should be denied basic safety checks that could protect them against risks such as fires or carbon monoxide poisoning.
People who have been forced to flee their homes need stability, support and to feel safe. We find ourselves overreliant on costly hotel accommodation as a direct result of the failure to tackle the asylum backlog. Around 160,000 people are living in limbo while they wait for an asylum decision.
Hotels, barges and houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) with less regulation are not the answer to a crisis born out of an administrative buildup of cases. These accommodation options do not offer the supportive environment that men, women and children coping with the trauma of having to flee their homes due to war and persecution need. The impact that these settings have on people’s physical and mental health can be devastating for both the people seeking our protection and for the communities they live in.
The best way to reduce the backlog would be to process asylum cases more quickly, including by prioritising children and those waiting more than three years.
Mike Adamson
Chief executive, British Red Cross
• One wonders how far this morally bankrupt government can sink. If it is exempting accommodation for vulnerable people from licensing, then how long will it be before it decides that there is no need for any licensing in the private rented sector. How many asylum seekers will be ill, or worse, as the result of this move?
Local authorities do still have other powers available to address unsafe housing – for example, “statutory nuisance” provisions under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and part 1 of the Housing Act 2004 to deal with the worst hazards such as cold, damp and mould, crowding and lack of space, and unhygienic conditions. Indeed, councils have a duty to deal with the very worst of conditions, but even here the government is seeking to undermine the statutory system that environmental health officers use to assess risks.
It is to be hoped that councils and their environmental health officers up their game and work to protect those whom the government seeks to abandon.
Stephen Battersby
Vice-president, Chartered Institute of Environmental Health
• This says it all: the government admits that it doesn’t think some people’s lives matter. People fleeing war and persecution and seeking sanctuary here are not worth protecting from house fires, carbon monoxide poisoning or overcrowding. In short, they are guaranteed slum conditions – approved by the government.
And what will they say when a house crammed with people burns down because the electrics were faulty? Wring their hands and say “we take asylum seekers’ welfare very seriously, and lessons will be learned”? Will their thoughts and prayers be with the victims’ families? What a charter for the rights of bad landlords.
A plea to any decent MP: do all you can to block this plan.
Susan Hofsteede
Bangor, Gwynedd
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
