§ Mr. Peter Archer (Warley, West)The House will soon be rising for the long recess. Most of us will be seizing the opportunity to spend more time in our constituencies than we can normally do, and we shall be holding what, for want of a better term, we still call our surgeries.
It is not always possible to categorise the personal tragedies that people bring to us, but I hazard a guess that the largest single category of problems we encounter will relate to housing. There will be those without a home, sharing accommodation with in-laws, existing in one room or simply homeless. There will be those who, for personal reasons, wish to change their place of abode. Some will require specific repairs, and there will be those living in inadequate houses.
I want to confine the debate to one aspect of housing—that is, inadequate housing. But it is worth reminding ourselves that housing policy is indivisible. If we do not save those older properties which are capable of being renovated, not only will we add to the misery of those still living in them but we shall reduce the housing stock available to those unhappy families who are awaiting a home.
Some of the unfit houses are beyond repair. The only sensible course is to knock them down and use the site to build more houses or to fulfil some other public need. In most of our towns and cities there is a desperate need for land for all kinds of purposes. But some of the houses could be saved if money were available to improve and repair them. A house saved is equivalent to a house added. And often the occupiers, who have spent large amounts of their time and money on their present house, would prefer to stay there if the house could be renovated.
To decide how to deal with the problem, we need to know how many houses are unfit, how many could be made fit at a reasonable cost, how many fit properties are sliding into the unfit category, how many houses which are not unfit lack some essential amenity, what amenity they lack, where they are situated and what the people living in them think about them.
From time to time the Secretary of State commissions a house condition survey. The Department commissioned one in 1976, which gave us much useful information. It was based on a survey of 9,000 dwellings in the areas of 215 local authorities. We learnt that at that time 794,000 dwellings were unfit for habitation, of which 643,000 were still occupied. We learnt that a further 921,000 lacked at least one basic amenity and that a further 1,480,000 required repairs which were likely to cost more than £500 at 1976 prices. We discovered in which regions most of them were situated.
Since then, many other houses have deteriorated. The Environmental Health Officers Association estimates that about 1 million households are living in unfit houses and that 1½ million are living in houses which lack basic amenities. We know that those dry statistics represent a whole way of life for those who think of those units of accommodation as home.
In his book "No place like home", my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) lets Mr. Harvey Earby tell his own story:
In point of fact the kiddies have never experienced a bath. Up to nine months ago my eldest boy, George, he's five, had 1434 never seen a bath in his life. He was at one of the wife's friends when he saw one, for the first time. Julian and Marie have never seen one in their lives. So they don't know what a bath looks like. Or what an indoor toilet looks like either. So when it comes to bath-time about the best thing we can do is to get this plastic bowl out, fill it with hot water, and then we stand George in it to start with and then it's a case of a good wash down from head to foot, take George out, dry him off, put him down. Then the same process again … Occasionally, if it's not too cold we can wash them in the kitchen sink. It's a bit larger and a bit deeper ….One morning we got up and it was a lovely shining morning, and I wandered in there"—that is, the front room —and the children pointed out that there were some flowers on he wall. I just chuckled at it. I took no notice and I came back in here. I said to Marjorie, 'Good God, those children have got a fantastic imagination. One of them just came up to me and said there was flowers on the wall.' She turned around and said 'Well, there is.' I went into the front room, and sure enough it was. It wasn't flowers, it was fungus. In fact, it was toadstools, big ones too. About two inches in diameter.When housing was debated in another place on 13 May this year, the Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro and my noble Friend Lord Soper described movingly the effect of these physical conditions on the people who live there, their family life and the social consequences which, unhappily, have been so much in the news recently.Even that concept is not new. In his report of 1842, Edwin Chadwick had this to say:
The removal of bad physical circumstances, and the promotion of civic, household, and personal cleanliness are necessary to the improvement of the moral conditions of the population, for that sound morality and refinement in manners and health are not long found co-existent with filth) habits amongst any class of the community.He was saying that not everyone could overcome the lack of amenities, bad hygiene, overcrowding and the stress which went with bad housing.From time to time all of us encounter letters like this, which I received from my constituency in March this year. It relates to a lady of 75:
She has no hot water, has to go outside for water, the toilet and for cooking. Up until the past few months she has felt able to cope with these conditions, but now it seems to be getting too much for her".Such are the conditions we are considering at a moment when unemployment in the construction industry is between 300,000 and 350,000—15 per cent. of that industry, the highest since the war. The workers who could carry out the improvements or renovations and, where necessary, demolish the unfit houses and build new ones are condemned to frustrating idleness.Obviously, the most urgent remedy for those human tragedies is additional resources. Over the past year the Secretary of State has announced a complex of improvement and repair grants. We can only be grateful. At the same time, he has ensured that local authorities have no money to implement them.
Recently, the Environmental Health Officers Association carried out a survey among local authorities to see what was happening to the present system of improvement grants. It found that 33 local authorities still have a need for a slum clearance programme, but 65.6 per cent. of those authorities are having to cut their programmes or are having to delay them. I shall refer to the consequences of that in a moment. One of the consequences of the present housing improvement programme allocation is that only 46 per cent. of the cash which the authorities regard as necessary to meet their existing programmes is available, and it takes no account of the increased level of grants.
1435 I could spend a great deal of time, if it were available, giving some of the frightening statistics which emerged from that survey, showing that so much of what is required is simply not being done because the resources are not being made available.
One could imagine other things which could be done quite quickly, too. This morning I received from the National Homes Improvement Council its proposals for neighbourhood housing services, of the kind which are being pursued so successfully in America. These are matters, perhaps, which the House can discuss on other occasions.
But, even before we consider the provision and direction of the vast resources which are necessary, we can provide for those who have to administer these remedies more effective administrative tools for their purposes. The Environmental Health Officers Association has identified at least two steps which could operate as catalysts to make the resources more effective.
The first is that although authorities have the power to take certain action, depending on the category into which a house falls, identifying the category is something of an administrative nightmare. There are 57 different pieces of legislative machinery relating to unfit housing. There has been no consolidation since the Housing Act 1957. The House will know that I and my hon. Friends have done all that we can to encourage consolidation. I know that work is proceeding on that subject and I hope that it will quickly bear fruit.
The other vital need is to provide up-to-date information. How many of the unfit houses revealed in the house condition survey of 1976 have been demolished? How many have been renovated? How many more houses have subsequently become unfit? What action has been taken about them, and with what results? We have known for some time that there has been a need for a further house condition survey similar to those conducted in 1971 and 1976. For some time prior to February 1981, some of my hon. Friends were asking the Secretary of State when he proposed to commission one. Until February of this year his answers hardly demonstrated a warm enthusiasm, but in the debate on 11 February he announced that he was
commissioning a new English house condition survey to be undertaken on the same pattern as that which took place in 1976."—[Official Report, 11 February 1981; Vol. 998, c. 895.]That was one of the few announcements made by the Secretary of State in this Parliament which was universally welcomed. Since then we have heard very little of the matter. My principal purpose today is to invite the Minister to give the House some further news on the subject. If this survey is to be on the same pattern as the 1976 survey, it may be worth looking to see what that pattern was.It fell into two parts. There was a survey relating to the physical condition of houses; it was also a social survey undertaken by interviewers from Research Survey of Great Britain Ltd. The social survey was a very helpful inquiry into the kinds of people who lived in unfit houses, what they thought of them and what they did about them. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that the new survey proposes to take a similar form.
1436 The physical condition survey involved visits to a sample of houses—9,000. It was important to ensure that each official applied the same standard and, in the words of the report:
checking that the results were not invalidated by atypical judgments.There is in this country a body of people whose training and experience fit them particularly for interpreting statutory provisions relating to aspects of public health and to environmental amenities and applying the statutory provisions to the concrete situation. They are the environmental health officers. Assessing a situation in the light of their technical knowledge, measuring it against a statutory standard and enforcing the statutory provisions is their life's work.The profession has grown up by reason of historical conditions in Britain, which in the past has led the world in matters of public health. It is a peculiarly British institution. If one attempts to discuss it with, for example, some of our European colleagues, one has to begin at the beginning and explain how one profession has come to acquire this combination of techniques which blend into its expertise. Yet when foreigners come to know about it they are invariably impressed that there are some things which we in Britain still do better than most other countries.
I say at once that I declare an interest in this matter, though in no sense is it a financial one. I have the honour to be a vice-president of the Environmental Health Officers Association. That, if not an interest, constitutes at least a prejudice.
The expertise of EHOs was recognised in November last year when the divisional court of the Queen's Bench Division considered the case of Patel v. Matel. The magistrates' court had had to consider whether certain premises were in such a condition as to constitute a statutory nuisance under section 92 of the Public Health Act 1936. Evidence had been given by an EHO and a former EHO. The magistrates, purporting to apply their own knowledge of the area, had rejected that evidence.
Giving judgment, Lord Justice Donaldson said:
In deciding some questions of fact, magistrates are entitled to draw on their own personal experience either of the locality or of life in general. But when it comes to deciding whether the condition of premises is or is not liable or likely to be injurious to health, one is moving outside the field where a tribunal is entitled to draw on its own experience. That is a matter upon which the tribunal needs informed expert evidence. This tribunal had informed expert evidence, and bearing in mind that they were not entitled to substitute their own opinion, the evidence was all one way.So, there was the court recognising that the application of statutory standards to housing was a matter of expertise, and an expertise peculiar to EHOs.What was more natural than that in 1976 the Department should acquire its labour force for the survey from among EHOs? It recruited 45 of them, and the local authorities willingly co-operated in seconding them for six weeks. They were briefed for three days by departmental officers as to exactly what was required, and I know of no complaint about their lack of care or expertise or any variation in standards. So, when the Secretary of State said that the survey was to be conducted on the same pattern as in 1976, everyone assumed that he would, naturally, employ EHOs, but it seems that that is not so. He has not announced this, so far as I am aware, but it has become clear that the preparations have not been proceeding along those lines. When the Department was asked in 1437 correspondence by the Environmental Health Officers Association, it confirmed that for this survey half of the surveyors were to be recruited from among EHOs and the other half would be drawn from the private sector.
That appears to mean surveyors and architects in private practice. I have no complaint against surveyors and architects in private practice. There are good and bad in every profession. I would not dispute that the majority are competent, careful and as good as their professional counterparts elsewhere in the world. All I say is that their professional expertise is not concentrated in the area of applying statutory standards of unfitness. If it is sought to conduct the survey with the minimum of atypical judgments resulting from different backgrounds, training and experience, how much more sensible is it to choose all the surveyors from the same group and to choose EHOs as in the past?
What, therefore, is the reasoning behind the departure? If it is an example of the Secretary of State's concern to save money, that would at least be consistent, but common sense suggests that employing people in private practice is likely to involve greater cost than seconding officials from local authorities. If I am wrong in that assumption, no doubt the Minister will explain the reason. In the absence of an explanation, however, the House is left with the suspicion that the Secretary of State's obsession with saving public expenditure evaporates when it clashes with his favourite political slogans.
Are there any complaints about the work of EHOs? In a letter of 14 July to Mr. Tyler, the secretary of the Institute of Environmental Health Officers, Mr. Ballard of the Department said:
The contribution that EHOs have made in the past has been a valuable one. The Secretary of State's decision to widen the field of recruitment on this occasion is not intended to devalue in any way that contribution, but should be seen as in line with his wish to involve the private sector as fully as possible in the area for which his Department has a responsibility.There we have it. To fit in with the doctrinaire concern to replace public servants by representatives of the private sector, whether or not it is relevant to the problem or appropriate to the task, we have this change in practice. That is why 81 hon. Members have signed my early-day motion on the subject. That is why I am grateful for this opportunity to ask the Minister how this departure from practice can help solve the practical problems of people living in unfit houses.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg)In the short time available, I shall try to answer some of the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). The Government attach the greatest importance to the survey. We are as concerned as the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make certain that the results should be accurate and informative. We are taking all possible steps to ensure that this will happen and that the survey will give the best possible value for money.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is being a little hard in talking about delay in announcing anything. He will recall that previous surveys have taken place in 1967, 1971 and 1976. A survey in 1981 therefore means the same intervening period as occurred between the last two surveys. With great respect, I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was unfair. It is essential that successive surveys should be carried out on a similar basis 1438 if comparisons of the results are to be valid. I do not, however, agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion that successive surveys should be the same in every detail.
Each time a survey is carried out, we learn lessons that enable us to improve the next survey. For example, this time we are stratifying our sample to get more information on the houses most at risk. We are redesigning the survey form for the physical inspection and also the questionnaires for the interview survey to collect the necessary information in the most economical way. We are developing our techniques of analysis in order to produce vital information more quickly. I cannot imagine that anyone would object to these changes.
It will also be realised, I am sure, that different types of staff have to be used for each of the three stages of the survey. In 1976, the physical condition survey was carried out by environmental health officers, the interview survey was conducted by interviewers employed by a market research firm and the brief local authority questionnaire was completed by the local authorities themselves. That does not mean that things have to be done in exactly the same way this time. I do not hear arguments that the interview survey must be carried out by the same market research firm that undertook the work in 1976. If we were to employ that firm again without considering other possibilities, I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be right to criticise us.
I cannot help wondering why the right hon. and learned Gentleman assumes that one stage of the survey—the physical inspection—must be done by staff drawn from a given group simply because they have done it on previous occasions. In fact, we have decided to draw half the surveyors required for the physical survey from the private sector. It is important that the private sector should be involved as fully as possible in all the areas of work for which we are responsible. We are therefore recruiting 30 professional staff from among the membership of the RICS and the RIBA. I should like to express our gratitude to those bodies for their help.
The other 30 will be drawn, as before, from environmental health officers that local authorities have kindly offered to second to the Department for six weeks. If anything is needed to show that we have confidence in the professional skills of these officers, the fact that we arc continuing to use their services surely makes this clear.
As we have already told the Environmental Health Officers Association, my right hon. Friend's decision to widen the field of recruitment is not intended to devalue. the contribution that environmental health officers have made in the past and will continue to make. Nevertheless, I do not accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assumption that environmental health officers have a monoploy of expert knowledge in this field. It goes without saying that the staff we are recruiting from the private sector are all fully qualified surveyors or architects. It is a condition of their employment that all have experience that is relevant to the survey. We have specified that they must be experienced in surveying all types of dwelling, including the older properties on which we shall be concentrating. They will be familiar with the characteristics of housing action areas and general improvement areas, with the standards required for grant-aided improvements and repairs and with the standards applied in deciding whether a dwelling is unfit and, if so, what statutory action is necessary.
1439 I do not accept that professionally qualified staff with years of experience in this field are less competent to assess the condition of dwellings just because they happen to be employed in the private sector rather than the public sector. It is true, of course, that when 60 individuals exercise their individual professional judgment, they may not always agree in their conclusions. No criticism is implied when I say that this is just as true of environmental health officers or valuation officers as of any other group of professionals. This is why we have always run briefing courses for all those participating in the physical survey, and why we shall continue to do so this year. Part of these courses is devoted to making certain that surveyors interpret the questions on the survey form in the same way, but the most important part consists of practical exercises. All the surveyors are taken to inspect a selection of houses, carefully chosen to represent the different types that they are likely to encounter in the survey. Each makes an individual report. They are then helped to compare notes.
We do not stop there in ensuring consistent standards. Our own staff monitor the work of those carrying out the survey while they are in the field, undertaking spot checks and discussing any problems. This constant quality control has worked satisfactorily in the past with environmental health officers from a wide variety of backgrounds. I am confident that there will be no problems this time.
I should like to dispose of the allegation that the Government are not concerned with minimising public expenditure or ensuring value for money. The House may be interested to know that the total external cost of carrying out this English house condition survey—there are separate arrangements for Wales—was estimated in 1440 February at about £400,000. This amount included the cost of employing environmental health officers for the physical survey. We now expect to be able to carry out the survey for a total external cost of £350,000. We may even be able to reduce that figure with no corresponding increase in internal costs.
I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that a reduction of over 12 per cent. in estimated costs demonstrates clearly that the Government are conscious of the need to save public expenditure. I do not know what else I can say to convince him or to convince the many hon. Members who have signed the early-day motion, perhaps without having knowledge of all the facts. This is occasionally the problem, as many hon. Members have found, in getting people to sign early-day motions. I do not happen to be a believer necessarily in the number of names attached to early-day motions. There is often just as much value in one signature on an early-day motion—that of the proposer, who should know something about the issue. As a vice-president of the Environmental Health Officers Association, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should know something about the subject and has demonstrated that he does.
I hope, therefore, that the facts—I emphasise "facts"—that I have given will dispel any worries of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and environmental health officers. We look forward to the officers cooperating with the private sector surveyors and architects and producing in the end what we all want—the information on which the Government can base their views and their policy decisions for the future. That is the purpose of the survey. I have no doubt that it will be accomplished in the way that the Government propose.