HC Deb 14 July 1950 vol 477 cc1818-28

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kenneth Robinson.]

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Alport (Colchester)

It has been made abundantly clear how gravely we on this side of the House regard the continued failure of the present housing policy to match the needs of the nation. I believe that the position will continue to stagnate until those in charge tackle it with the fervour of engaging in a social crusade. I have continued to be amazed at how complacently hon. Gentlemen on the back benches opposite accept the assurances of the Minister that nothing more than is being done can be done. All I can say is that something better must be done. The right attitude is that which animated one of the famous armies during the last war which took as its slogan: The difficult we do immediately: The impossible takes a day or two longer. It is not only the failure of the general housing policy which we on this side condemn. There also appear to us to be certain administrative weaknesses, to one main aspect of which I should like to call attention this afternoon. On two occasions I have asked the Minister of Health for details about the basis on which the allocation of the houses to local authorities is made. His replies on both those occasions seem to be vague and even evasive.

On 20th April, he said: Within the limits of the total programme, allocations to individual local authorities are made in the light of the current evidence available as to the relative housing need and building progress."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 309-10.] Later, I asked him how far the resources of the building industry are taken into account, and how these are estimated. He replied that one of the factors taken into account was the availability of building labour for housing work as estimated from progress on current contracts and in the light of employment statistics. If the Parliamentary Secretary can persuade his Minister to be a little more precise in answering the Questions which are put to him in the House, he might not find his Friday afternoons occupied so frequently by Adjournment Debates.

How is need estimated? Are local housing lists provided by the local authorities used? If so, why cannot the Minister give to this House, as he has been asked to do on numerous occasions, a reliable estimate of the total number on the housing lists in this country? How can he break down the allocation of 200,000 houses a year among local authorities fairly if he has no idea of the total need? If he is using the numbers on the housing lists of the various local authorities, how does he square that with his allegation that those figures, when totalled, are misleading and include a great deal of duplication? If he is not using these figures at all, because of that, then what is he using as a yardstick of local need?

There are only three possible conclusions. The first is that the Minister is withholding the information about total housing need for political reasons. He knows that if he did produce the figures, they would show housing to be a far more serious social problem than unemployment was before the war. The second is that he is using figures as an indication of need in which he has no confidence, and that seems to me to point to gross administrative inefficiency. There is a third possible conclusion, and that is that he has no proper basis of estimating need at all as between the various local authorities, in which case his claim that need is taken into account has no genuine foundation in fact.

If that is true, the sooner we have a nation-wide inquiry into the housing needs of all local authorities the better, because hon. Gentlemen opposite are always claiming that they are the planners, and they should by now have learned that they cannot plan effectively unless they have available to them the full and accurate statistics upon which their plans are to be based.

The truth of the matter is—and no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if he considers that I am wrong—that the prime factor governing the size of the allocations to individual local authorities is what one would call housing progress—the number or the percentage of the allocation of council houses which have been put out to contract by the local authority concerned and completed by them. That method, with the strict ratio between private enterprise houses and council houses which has been established by the Minister, operates against the interests of the smaller country districts and in favour of the large cities and towns. The reason is that in the country, direct labour building, even if it were desirable, and in my view it is not, is quite uneconomic, and building by contract is far more difficult in the country districts than in the great towns. That is, the building industry in the countryside is organised primarily on the basis of small concerns, and the small businesses in the building industry are unable, and in many cases unwilling, to undertake the obligations and responsibilities which the Ministry's housing contract imposes upon them.

The result, therefore, is that the placing of contracts in the country areas is slower than it is in the large towns and cities; and, because there is still insufficient incentive to small men in the country areas and insufficient flexibility in housing policy as a whole, the local authorities in the country areas are frequently penalised because they have been expected to get their full number of houses contracted for, and because they have not been able to do that their subsequent allocations have been cut down.

I would like to give an example of this. In one rural district council area I know, the number of people on the waiting list on 1st January, 1948, was 636. Two years later—and this is surely a very good example of how the Government's housing policy is failing—on 1st January, 1950, the number was 630, in spite of a considerable building programme which that authority had carried out. Its allocation of houses for 1948 was 139, but it was unable to get contracts for a complete number, and, as a result, its allocation in 1949 was cut down to 20 houses. So far in 1950, its allocation has been cut down to 30 houses.

On the other hand—and this is what brought this point primarily to my notice—when I was sitting upstairs on a Committee on a Private Bill, I was surprised to learn that the great corporation promoting that Bill had, so far as its housing authority was concerned, no difficulty whatever in getting as many houses allocated as it could possibly build, and that there was no fear, so far as they were concerned, of being limited in their allocation—they were merely limited by the building resources available to them.

Reverting to my earlier point about need, the needs of the rural district council with which I am concerned were almost identical in 1948 and 1950, yet the allocation in 1948 was 139, whereas that in 1950 has been only 30. This simply does not make sense and I do not think that it is fair. Further, because of these great difficulties facing the country areas, this policy is preventing those who want a modest home of their own—and who are prepared to build it and to contribute fully to the rates in order, incidentally, to assist in subsidising council houses in the area and thus in keeping down the gross rents paid by those less able to build for themselves—from doing, what is a very important thing indeed from the point of view of the district councils concerned owing to the reduc- tion in the allocation year by year. Thus, the problems of the country areas become more acute.

I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to reconsider the problems of these country areas, and, in particular, those of individual rural district councils, but I am sure it is urgent that he should do so. The need for housing is just as essential in the country areas as it is in the great cities and towns. All rural district councils should be dealt with and their housing allocations made on a different basis from those of the urban district councils and the boroughs. I think there would be great advantages in having the allocations for the rural district councils based on total expenditure allowed, rather than on the number of houses to be built. This would make for greater flexibility, particularly in the private enterprise section. I should much prefer to see built two houses costing £1,000 each than one costing £2,000. I am certain that with this greater freedom and with their knowledge of local needs and resources, the local authorities could make far greater progress in solving the housing problems of the country than is being made at the present time.

A further point I wish to raise concerns the time at which allocations are notified to the local authorities concerned. In the case of the rural district council which I have in mind, the allocation for 1950 was made on 13th April. They set about calling for tenders as quickly as they could, but obviously by the time those tenders are received and accepted and the contracts completed, a good part of the best summer building weather will be over. As a result of that, increased delay and expenditure will be involved in completing the houses. After that, the Minister will probably penalise the unfortunate rural district council concerned by reducing its allocation for next year.

I believe that anyone administering a housing programme should make certain that the allocation for each year is notified to local authorities by 1st January, and if a supplementary allocation can be provided later, so much the better. This is an example of administrative failure, and, in this case, of unfairness. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that on 4th May this year the Minister announced a reversion to the previous ratio of 4-1. The rural district council in question quite properly readjusted its allocation accordingly, only to learn from the Minister's circular, 57/50, of 17th May, that the new ratio would only take effect in 1951. From the Questions asked in the House recently it is clear that this rural district council is not the only one concerned.

The new ratio should apply to allocations made after 4th March, 1950. Both from the point of view of administration and of local needs, this would be right and fair. But if the Minister does not feel he can apply it as far back as that, I think it would be right to say that any council which received its allocation within one month of the Minister's announcement of 4th May should be allowed to adopt the revised ratio as between private enterprise houses and council houses.

I have brought certain points to the attention of the House this afternoon, partly because I think there is a very grave danger of even the meagre housing programme, as we know it at present, failing to achieve a fair distribution of houses among the various localities concerned. But I have done so, particularly, because they are evidence which confirms one of the criticisms we have been making of the Minister and of his Ministry during the last five years or more—that it is not only his general policy that is wrong, but also that many of the difficulties we have seen result from bad administration in the Ministry.

4.16 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop)

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) for enabling me to be here to deal with the points he has raised this afternoon. Far from regretting it, I find it a pleasurable occasion, because it is quite clear that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the administrative procedure of making housing allocations up and down the country, and it is desirable that we should have some understanding about how this work is done.

I should have thought that most hon. Members with contacts with local authorities, and, I hope, with some knowledge of the regional offices of the Ministry of Health, would have already got a fairly good general picture of this work. However, it is apparent that the hon. Member for Colchester has not that general impression, and I am very glad of this opportunity of clearing up one or two points he has raised.

First, as a matter of general principle, it is, of course, quite wrong to suppose that the rural areas have suffered some disadvantages by too close attention being given to the needs of the big cities. That is very far from being the case. In point of fact, more houses have been built in relation to the population in rural areas than have been built in urban areas. Indeed, the contrast with the previous development of housing in rural areas is very striking throughout the country. It is utterly untrue to suggest that rural areas are under some special disabilities.

I quite realise the problems that arise in particular rural areas, such as difficulties about sites and about getting labour across to some particular place in a rural district. But the difficulties that face some of our bigger cities are much more clamant than that. In very many of our big cities, owing, in part, to the success of our vigorous industrial development at the present time, there are not the building workers available to do the work so urgently needed. It is, therefore, unfortunate that very often we are not able to develop as rapidly in our big cities as we should like to do. It is quite untrue to say that there is any sort of disproportionate effort as between urban and rural areas.

The main feature of our allocation procedure, is, of course, that it is essentially flexible, and takes account not only of one or two factors but of the whole wide range of local conditions that must be thought of in deciding what number of houses a local authority is to be allowed to build, and, in fact, is able to build. We have allocated to us nationally certain total resources available for house-building in the country as a whole, and the main issue we are concerned with in the Ministry is to ensure that all that available material and labour is fully used. It would obviously be a great tragedy if allocations were made to one area or another and were not fully used, with the result that we should not have achieved our objective of making the greatest possible use of the resources both in labour and material that were nationally available to us.

We split up the total national resources in terms of houses available to us as a Ministry between the different regions of the country—the Ministry regions. These allocations are not final decisions. They are subject to amendment and alteration according to the progress made in the different regions, and take into account variations in the supply of material and labour. Once a region has been given its allocation for a year, well in advance of the building year, the problem of allocation to individual authorities is left to the principal regional officer, so that he can make his own arrangements in the most flexible way possible, to ensure that the resources available in the region are fully utilised throughout the year.

Obviously the regional officer, in making his allocation to all the large number of local authorities in his region, has to take account of a wide range of different factors. I will mention some of them. Obviously it is impossible in answer to Questions on the Floor of the House to deal with this matter in detail, but I imagine that some of the points that a regional officer must keep in mind will be apparent to every hon. Member.

First, he has to keep in mind, as mentioned this afternoon, the relative housing needs of the area, and we certainly do not regard the housing lists as necessarily an accurate estimate of the relative needs as between one district and another; but housing lists ale, of course, taken into account, among other matters. Then there is the question of population, and whether there has been bomb damage, and so on. These are all matters to be borne in mind.

There is also the question of the availability of building labour. There again, unless we take account of a matter like that, we shall be making allocations to an area which we know they cannot use, and that would deny other areas the opportunity of building. We naturally keep in touch very closely with the Ministry of Labour, who have a clear picture continuously of the building labour position. It is not merely a question of the total number of building trade workers available, but of assuring that we have a balanced team of building workers. That is a problem that arises in many areas where there may be a large amount of unskilled labour available but not the trained labour that we need as well.

As the hon. Member for Colchester mentioned, we must also take account of the progress made by the authority in the area in the past. Unless we do that, we may be put in the position of making allocations that cannot be used, and, in fact, sterilising material that other areas urgently need. Therefore, we take account of the progress made, but we keep always in mind the possibility of change, because the position in an area does change very much from time to time. That is always kept in mind by the regional officers.

Some regional officers issue the whole allocation in advance of the actual building year. Others, keeping in mind the particular needs of their regions, make allocations in stages or "bites," because it may be that the local authority can only undertake a certain part of the work and may be able to take on the other part later in the year. The regional officers might keep in reserve a certain amount of the allocation to meet a case of that kind. We are, of course, encouraging local authorities to keep in close contact with our regional officers in order that any change in their position can be borne in mind and alterations made.

The other point we have to keep in mind is the availability of sites. That is much more of an issue in some areas than in others. Then we have the question of the special industrial needs of particular districts in regard to agriculture, mining or export industries. All this multiplicity of factors has to be borne in mind, and can only be looked at locally where the building has to be done. That is why we leave the greatest flexibility and opportunity for change in the hands of our principal regional officers. We find, very often, that complaints are made about allocations because it is not realised that allocations are sometimes made in stages, which is quite a reasonable thing for a regional officer to do.

Sometimes we find that a small allocation has been made because there is a large number of houses under contract or being built, and that no more houses can be built until those under construction are much further towards completion. The regional officer must keep in mind the actual stage of development of the housing work of a particular authority. I shall have to look into the individual case raised in more detail. I am not sure to which of the authorities in the constituency of the hon. Member he is referring. It is frequently the case that an allocation may not be made until later in the year, for the reasons I have mentioned as, for example, that already there is a good deal of work in hand, either at the tendering stage or actually commenced, in which case the regional officer can perfectly fairly say to the local authority, "Let us see how the scheme is going forward before I commit the materials under my control. If the progress is good we shall then be able to discuss the matter further."

We not only encourage the local authorities to keep in contact with our regional officers, but our regional officers are keeping in contact with the local authorities by visiting them and, in some cases, attending meetings in the towns and villages concerned. In that way they are keeping in close contact with the work. I am sure that this flexibility of administration is highly desirable and essential if we are to secure the full use of the materials that are available. As far as private licensing is concerned, we have already made some alterations, as the House knows. We are only able to bring this into operation in regard to the 1951 allocation, because the 1950 allocation, by and large, has been issued and the houses are under construction or the work being put out to tender. It would be impossible, for that reason, to go back on the contracts that have been made, but where a local authority is not in that position we are prepared, as my right hon. Friend has said, to look into individual cases. In any case, our regional officers will be making the allocations in many areas quite shortly for the next year's building operations, to see if they can get all the preparatory work completed this year so that the building can commence at the earliest possible moment next year.

The Question having been proposed after Four o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-nine Minutes to Five o'Clock.