§ Mr. Alfred Dubs (Battersea)May I start, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by wishing you a happy Christmas and all the best for the new year? As it is Christmas, may I extend greetings to the Under-Secretary of State? I am informed that he is about to score his century in terms of replying to Adjournment and other debates. I hope that after today he will declare his innings closed and, for his own sake, move on to something different, as I think that he has been put in the hot seat rather too often. I regret that that is the last cheerful thing that I am able to say this afternoon.
The problem of families living in high rise and tower blocks is so desperately serious that, even at this time of the year, I have to express my concern—and that of thousands of others—at the plight of such families. I should like first to recall the history of this enormous social problem.
I understand that between 1945 and 1951 the Labour Government saw the future of housing policy, the relief of the problems of inner city areas, and the provision of decent homes, in terms of a major development in new towns. That policy was reversed in 1951, when the Conservative Government came into office. Instead of new towns being developed, there was increasing emphasis on slum clearance in the inner cities. The feeling was that the only way to achieve that aim was to build flats at a very high density. The construction industry welcomed the proposal and moved into system building. The larger firms in the construction industry develped some very healthy business in producing the major housing works in the inner city areas.
The problem of high rise blocks was particularly exacerbated by the Housing Subsidies Act 1956, which gave a higher subsidy for flats the higher they were built. That provision, along with system building by the construction industry — which enabled less skilled workers, at lower wages, to do the building—resulted in a proliferation of high rise blocks and tower blocks in many inner city areas.
In 1967, under the Labour Government, a new subsidy system was introduced which took away the incentive to build so high. In 1968 we had the Ronan Point disaster, and this began to make people think about whether we ought to be developing our towns and cities in this way. By the 1970s, very little high-rise or tower block building took place.
But, by then, the damage had been done. I do not seek to blame anyone in particular, but it seems to me that a generation of architects, planners, civil servants and politicians of all parties was to blame for allowing the destruction of communities and for allowing a system of building in our cities which has caused havoc and will go on causing havoc until we tackle the problem in a way that we are not doing at present.
If I may be allowed a little historical latitude, I suppose that it can be said that a French architect, Le Corbusier, is probably one of the main people responsible, if we trace the architectural descent of these buildings—
§ It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Donald Thompson.]
754§ Mr. DubsI was saying that Le Corbusier, to my mind, carried a great deal of the responsibility. But in fact all those involved in decision making at the time were responsible for what has happened to many of our cities.
The effects of this type of building have influenced many people, but the direct consequences lie on those who live in high rise and tower blocks. Figures are not too easy to come by, but my understanding is that about 800,000 households live on the second floors or higher and that about 250,000 households live on the fourth floors or above. Altogether, some 300,000 children under the age of 16 live in flats on the second floors or higher. Most of these are local authority dwellings, of course, and the problem is especially serious in London where a large proportion of the tower and high-rise blocks have been built. I understand that about 170,000 children under the age of 16 live on the second floors or higher of these developments.
Living in these conditions has posed a number of serious problems for the people there. First, there is safety. I do not wish to use this debate to discuss the problems of Bison and the other systems building difficulties which have been the subject of numerous discussions and of much concern. I mention them only in passing. But the safety problems have involved everything from concrete falling from higher levels to fire hazards. It is no coincidence that the families on the top floors of one on my council estates are having to be moved out, much to their relief and pleasure, because there are not adequate fire safety exits.
We have had difficulties with asbestos. The Livingstone estate in my constituency has had to be emptied of its tenants so that the asbestos could be cleared out. The same asbestos problem has been found on other estates. We had the Ronan Point episode. We have had the Bison problem, and there have been others. We also have smaller problems such as defective windows and windows that cannot be locked properly.
Far and away the most serious problem is that of the isolation of people, especially families living in high-rise blocks. One has only to walk along those dark corridors, often without windows, with nothing but blank front doors, to feel the sense of isolation. There are no windows from these halls and stairways. The only windows are to the outside, from which no one can be seen walking by because they are too far above the ground. Some of the families living there feel a desperate sense of isolation.
Families cannot supervise their children if they wish to play outside. There was a tragic murder of a little girl near the Doddington estate in Battersea park some time ago. I am not saying that the murder was caused by that environment, but the fact that it occurred made parents even more reluctant to allow their children to play out of their sight.
There have been a number of tragic accidents and even falls from some of the higher blocks. Children have fallen. Adults have fallen. I shall give one or two examples in a moment.
The flats lack play spaces, and children are either not allowed to play outside or are cooped up for long periods. They cannot socialise. They cannot play outside and the flats are not big enough to allow them to play with their friends. There is a desperate sense of isolation.
755 All the evidence from many experts and successive surveys confirms that the physical and mental health of people living in tower blocks suffers. When they move out, their health improves. Even statistics on school attainment suggests that children in tower blocks do badly.
There are also problems of dampness, water penetration at higher levels, condensation, inadequate heating and rust affecting the steel reinforcements of buildings. In this modern technological age, we ought to be able to solve the problem of defective lifts. Lifts are out of order all too often in tower blocks. When that happens, how can people get out, go about their business or go shopping? They cannot do so unless they are prepared to talk down 16 floors. That is out of the question for a mother with a pram.
Pevsner wrote about the Doddington estate in his book on the architecture of south London. The estate is on the south side of Battersea Park road and consists of post-war council housing. Pevsner says:
chiefly Wandsworth's disastrous mistake of the 1960s, the Doddington estate … by Emberton, Frank and Tardrew … The grey chequered concrete slab blocks marching beside the railway are a chilling monument to that mistaken era of high-rise and industrialised building … The homely brick details of the low shops, library, and health centre, loosely grouped around a pedestrian square off Battersea Park road, cannot compensate for the arid, empty spaces over the car parks, the bleak upper access ways, and the inhuman scale of the whole conception.That is pretty clear.There have been a number of tragic deaths in tower blocks. Children have fallen from balconies and out of windows. There have been suicides. A few years ago, a three-year-old child who wanted to play threw his tricycle from a 10th floor window, threw his plimsolls after it, climbed out after them and fell to his death. There are such tragic, cases in many parts of the country and they demonstrate what can happen when children are cooped up in difficult conditions.
Some people say, "They manage to live in high-rise blocks abroad." The luxurious New York penthouse suite is a byword in the living style of the rich. However, the Department of the Environment's study "Families in Flats" revealed that even a fairly brief investigation in Europe showed that people on the Continent did not like high-rise living.
The only people who like high-rise living are those who are childless and fairly affluent and have a way of escape at weekends. For them, it is not so bad, but for people for whom life on the 15th floor is a reality day in and day out, it is tragic. They have no way of escape and usually they cannot afford to get away for the day, let alone for the weekend.
Last month, I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment about children in high-rise flats. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment replied:
The Department's report 'Families in Flats' was sent in 1981 to the local authorities known to have multi-storey family dwellings in their stock. It concluded that it is preferable for families with young children to occupy houses or flats below the second storey. My right hon. Friend does not consider that further advice is needed." — [Official Report, 26 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 400.]Of course it is preferable for families to live at a lower level, but that is a rather complacent statement and surely understates the gravity of the problem.Tower blocks will be home for some people for the rest of their lives. Although they may want to get out, they cannot do so. My difficulty is that it is hard to know 756 whether it is right to remind people of the awful conditions in which they live, and thereby increase their dissatisfaction, or whether I should hold off and say less. I have come to the conclusion that it is right to describe such things exactly as they are, and to accept that on some of those estates the majority want to get out. It cannot be any way to live if most people are saying, "I can't stand it here. Get me out at any price." But those people cannot get out, because of the combination of the Government's policies and in Wandsworth's case, the council's policies.
The recent announcement of a cut in housing investment has only made the problem worse — a problem resulting from cuts in housing investment ever since 1979. The people cannot afford to move out and to buy elsewhere, because they just do not have the money. Many of them are on supplementary benefit and many are desperately poor.
Wandsworth council is selling not only council flats to sitting tenants, but almost every single council property that becomes vacant on any decent council estate. As a result, there are no empty flats on the nicer estates into which people from the tower blocks could move. That is so, even though the need for such a move may be compelling and urgent and have a high medical priority. That is why people feel trapped and are desperate. That is why, at almost every Friday evening surgery that I hold, people burst into tears in their desperation, and plead with me to help to alleviate their housing problems. They almost always come from such estates.
The real insult is that a mile or two away from some of those high-rise estates in my constituency is something called the Easthill estate. It is a low-rise estate that was built by the Labour council and completed by the Tories when they took ever after 1978. The whole estate was sold to people who for the most part did not come from the area and were not on the housing waiting list. They moved over from the north side of the Thames. The ultimate insult to those on the Doddington estate, or living in York gardens and on the other estates is that the Easthill estate has "for sale" signs, as those who bought their properties are now trying to make a profit and to move away.
What action can we take? First, we need recognition of the seriousness of the problem. Secondly, the Government should provide more information about the defects in those high-rise and tower blocks. On 23 October, the Government announced that there was to be an inquiry into large panel systems. I wonder what progress there has been. Will the Government consider encouraging local authorities to develop works programmes so that defective blocks that can be improved, are improved rapidly? Above all, will the Government state not that it would be nice if people with children were not in tower blocks, but that it should be the urgent priority of all local authorities to ensure that parents with young children do not live in such blocks, and certainly do not live above the second floor.
Of course, the Government cannot say that at the moment because there are no houses into which people can move. Therefore, we need a change in attitude towards housing policy. We need cash for investment, and local authorities and central Government must accept that the 757 problem is urgent and that it should be tackled by recognising it, and by having enough money available so that houses and low-rise flats can be built, thus enabling people to move out of the tower blocks.
If the defects in existing high-rise buildings cannot be remedied—and in some cases they cannot be—there is no alternative but to bulldoze them. But high-rise blocks are suitable for some people, provided that the defects can be tackled. There are young people, single people, students and childless couples who might well say that if the lifts are working and the main defects are put right, they would be happy to live there. But for people with children, that is no way for them to spend their lives
I should like to make a plea on behalf of the hundreds and thousands of families living in such flats. It will be a bleak Christmas and a depressing new year for them. There will be many bleak Christmases and depressing new years for them while they are cooped up with their young children in such flats. We have no right to deny our fellow citizens decent housing and decent lives. But as long as they are living in such conditions, we are denying them just that. We need not complacency from the Government but something that recognises the problem and indicates that action will be taken.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young)This is an important debate on a very important subject. It has been introduced, as one would expect, in a fluent and compassionate way by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs). Like him, I represent thousands of people who live in high rise flats. I cut my political teeth canvassing the residents of tower blocks in Wandsworth and Clapham 15 years ago. In about 40 minutes I will be at my advice bureau in Acton, doubtless seeing people from the south Acton estate who will be raising with me exactly the sort of problems mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
When I looked at the Order Paper and saw the subject for debate, I thought that it had a familiar ring to it. Indeed, it was the subject of my first Adjournment debate in this House 101/2 years ago. I confess that, in opposition, I felt a mild sadistic pleasure in keeping up late at night a whole series of Ministers who had to debate with me important subjects such as the height requirements for entrance to the police force, the problem of take-away food shops in London and the need for better provision for cyclists.
Shortly before the 1979 election, after my 10th such Adjournment debate, I had no idea of the scale of retributive justice that would be visited on me. My private office tells me, with a visible lack of enthusiasm, that since 1979 I have participated in a further 89 Adjournment debates, making this—as the hon. Gentleman rightly said — my 100th. I have no idea whether that is precedented. A number of my ministerial colleagues set out on the same path in 1979, but they have either displayed enough independence of action and originality of thought and been promoted or they have displayed too much and been sacked. My sympathies lie with the occupants of the Chair and my hon. Friends from the Whips Office who have had to sit through all this, no doubt to report to their chiefs any incipient trace of incoherence.
758 Looking back at what I said 10 years ago, and listening to the hon. Gentleman this afternoon, I find that our concerns are very similar about the way in which the very hostile physical environment of our high rise blocks can lead to social and family stress. I said then that high rise blocks were no place for families with children. At that time, 500,000 families were living in them. Since I spoke in that debate substantial progress has been made in reducing the problems in several different ways. Large numbers of families with children have been moved out of tower blocks. We know a great deal more about the physical improvements that are needed to make these estates more acceptable places in which to live. We know far more about the importance of accessible, responsive local management and we have learnt something from experiments with different forms of tenure that seek to involve the tenants more directly either in the management or, in some cases, the ownership of the block. In a few cases, we have had to accept that the condition of the blocks has deteriorated beyond recovery, and that demolition had to be considered together with a fresh start.
I share the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the problem. The majority of high rise housing was built in the early 1960s when the local authorities, with the best of intentions, were clearing slums and were encouraged to build so-called units of accommodation quickly to overcome the severe shortage of housing. At that time, system building and factory methods of construction using concrete and other materials were in fashion, but often untried.
As a result, we had concentrations of high density housing in major conurbations, which created estates that soon became subject to physical deterioration and decline. That was compounded by remote and impersonal management with stereotyped and insensitive allocation policies, reinforced by an often ineffective repair and maintenance service. In turn, that contributed to feelings of insecurity and alienation among the residents and, in some cases, the residents reacted against that environment and began to abuse it. That completed the cycle of decay.
As I said 10 years ago, and repeat today, tower blocks are rarely suitable places for young children to grow up in. There are the practical problems, mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, of young mothers with small children trying to get to the 15th floor when the lifts are out of action, with all the problems of moving shopping, prams and washing. They are compounded by the sense of isolation, the strains of keeping children quiet and anxieties about the children's safety. Appallingly, between 1973 and 1979 about five children a year living on the second floor or above were killed falling from their homes.
In turn, the problems of the children have an impact on the parents. The study that we carried out with the National Children's Bureau showed that children who live above the first floor do worse at school and are more disturbed than children who live in houses, ground floor and first floor flats. They are affected by their mothers' dissatisfaction with multi-storey living.
The Department took the problems seriously as early as 1973. Under a Conservative Government, it issued guidance to local authorities in a circular making it clear that allocating high level flats to families with children was undesirable and should be avoided. In the debate that took place a decade ago I called for a stop to the building of high rise blocks. Modestly, I claim little personal credit for the 759 fact that that period marked the end of an era of high rise council building. At the same time I asked the then Labour Government to issue advice and guidance to local authorities to enable them to use the high rise blocks that they already had to the best advantage. That advice finally appeared under a Conservative Government in 1981 in the Department's report entitled "Families in Flats", to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We sent copies to 120 local authorities which were known to have mult-storey family dwellings in their stock.
Progress is being made. Over the past few years local authorities have done much to reduce the number of families with children living in tower blocks. In Birmingham, for example, 16 per cent. of the local authority's stock was high density housing in 1980, and 300 of the council's 420 tower blocks have now been designated as child-free. The national general household survey shows that the number of families with children under 16 living above the first floor has fallen by about one third between 1981 and 1982. Given the problems facing families living with children in tower blocks and high rise developments, that is only right.
There have been physical changes and physical improvements. High rise blocks need not be undesirable places in which to live for those without children merely because they are high rise. Numerous privately owned blocks here and abroad give witness to that fact. A recent report published by my Department entitled "Housing Initiatives for Single People of Working Age" gives examples of where enterprising local authorities have successfully converted multi-storey family dwellings into homes for the single. I understand that the London borough of Wandsworth has successfully let multi-storey flats to single people. Other improvements, such as the provision of entry phones, have given added security to the elderly, who without the problems associated with children in the block, such as noise, vandalism and break downs, can live in the blocks satisfactorily. The elderly often prefer their privacy, the views and the quietness in tower blocks without children.
My Department has helped this process directly through the urban programme. It has supported a wide range of schemes that compensate for the problems of living in high rise blocks. These projects range from the provision of entry phones, the conversion of empty flats into accommodation for community purposes, the provision of play and recreational facilities, general environmental improvements and improved management schemes. The cost of such schemes will run to several million pounds in 1984 85.
Thirdly, I mentioned the importance of good management. When it is not possible quickly to transfer families out of flats—for example, because of the lack of suitable alternative accommodation—much can be done by good, accessible management to make the flats more acceptable dwelling places.
My Department has worked with a number of local authorities through the priority estates project in improving the day-to-day management of these estates, by local authorities. In 1981, one of our project consultants gave some advice to Wandsworth borough on a management initiative on the Henry Prince eatate. I understand that this, together with modernisation of these pre-war flats, has been highly successful.
Some of the flatted estates require capital expenditure, and when this is made available one has to beef up the 760 locally based housing management in the way that the priority estates project has shown; otherwise we invest the capital and the benefits are frittered away. In too many places, housing staff do not devote the time and effort required to ensure that repairs are carried out expeditiously and tenancy agreements are properly fulfilled. The problems of management are more complex on flatted estates where, for example, vandalism or the neglect of common parts affects many more people more directly than on so-called cottage estates.
My Department is convinced that more locally based management is needed, which operates within defined revenue expenditure budgets and is genuinely able to manage and co-ordinate essential functions such as repairs, caretaking and cleaning, lettings, rent arrears control, enforcement of tenancy conditions, all of which fall within council policy guidelines. It is essential that this duty is discharged with the maximum amount of consultation with and involvement of the residents. If hon. Members think that their authority may be unaware of the lessons of the priority estates project, there is an excellent report on local housing management which was published by my Department in February 1984 and which is available in the Library. I understand that Wandsworth is currently proposing to take some initiatives on the Doddington estate in Battersea, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. In some respects, this is similar to the approach advocated by my Department.
Fourthly, there are changes to tenure, and here I part company with the hon. Gentleman who referred disparagingly to council house sales. I do not accept that such sales exacerbate the problems. When a tower block is sold, it can help to reduce the problem by injecting private capital, which may not be available to the local authority, and the physical improvements that are necessary. Increasing the status of the tenants and their dwellings fosters a sense of responsibility and commitment. Enhanced tenancy participation in the management of estates has, in many cases, had the effect of reducing or eliminating many of the problems I have discussed. An extra capacity in the private sector has many benefits. There are several interesting examples of multi-storey blocks being brought into use by private developers who have bought the blocks, improved them and then resold them to single buyers and couples—usually first-time buyers. In a few cases we have had to cut our losses, demolish the tower block and start again. With the progress I have described, I hope that that last resort will become more rare. Much progress has been made. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not accuse me of complacency, because much more still needs to be done.
As the last speaker before the House rises for Christmas, I take this opportunity to wish a happy Christmas to you, Mr. Speaker, your Deputy Speakers and the Officers and staff of the House. No one is looking forward to Christmas more than Ministers in my Department. I note that, unlike the usual principle of last in, first out, this time it is last out, first in, because when the House resumes Department of the Environment questions will be raised. By that time we shall be reinvigorated and refreshed, and I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker and the rest of the House will be similarly refreshed. I take this opportunity to wish you, Sir, a happy Christmas and all the best for 1985.
§ Mr. SpeakerBefore I adjourn the House, may I thank the Under-Secretary of State and congratulate him on his century. I imagine that the hon. Member hopes that the next century will be more slowly achieved. I wish the Leader of the House, the whole House and the staff a happy Christmas and a new year of good order.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Three o'clock, pursuant to the resolution of the House of 19 December.