HOUSING (Hansard, 15 July 1952)

§ Mr. Short
As I was saying, the only allocation is one in five, but it means that those houses are much easier to get than are council houses. They are being allocated on the criterion of wealth and not on the criterion of need. This may cause some amusement on the Government Front Bench, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the question of rehousing the people I represent is no joke. I question the selling of houses we have not yet built in Newcastle. We have a pool of 17,000 houses to let, but if there is any proposal by the Tory council to sell council houses, the Tory council will be swept out of office, so will the remaining Tory M.P. who has visited the City three times since his Election. That is beside the point.
These are some of the points about housing in Newcastle which I raised before with the Minister. I would ask him to look into them and while he will not be able to deal with them now I ask him to look into them and if he can to do anything at all to help us in our efforts to rehouse the people, it will assist.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Marples)
We have had a long debate, and one of the charms of our debates is the unexpected which frequently happens. I was having my dinner before coming to the Chamber, and I received a call from here which was unexpected and not as welcome as it might have been. The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Irving) has been most 2107 patient and has sat throughout the entire debate. I ought, I think, to do him the credit of dealing fully with the points he raised, because, after all, it is his Adjournment debate. He has been very courteous and he never interrupted once. I should like to deal with the points that he raised about temporary houses in Tottenham.
Quite frankly, they were a legacy from the Coalition Government, which started them. I do not want to introduce any controversial note by saying that it is a bad legacy, but it is a difficult one. The life of the temporary houses was limited to 10 years, and an excessive amount will have to be spent on repairs as they get older. A lot of them are sited in London, particularly on commons and open spaces. They are going to be a bit of a difficulty to my right hon. Friend or to his successors in future years. They were provided under the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act of 1944, and the terms and conditions were laid down quite clearly at the time in a memorandum.
In paragraph 8 of that Memorandum the hon. Member will see that the conditions were: first, the site was to be provided by the local authority; secondly, the local authority constructed the necessary roads, sewers and services; thirdly, the Ministry of Works provided the foundations, erected the house and did the works necessary within the curtilage of the site. The local authority was required to inform the Ministry of Works of the nature of the soil and whether any special proportions were necessary for providing the foundations. The fourth point was that the local authorities were responsible for the repair and maintenance of the house.
Under the Act of 1944—this is the crucial point which will interest the hon. Gentleman—Section 2 provides that the Minister may arrange with the Minister of Works to remove a temporary house on giving due notice of his intention to the local authority. If my right hon. Friend decided to remove any temporary house by arrangement with the Minister of Works he could do so. The hon. Member will find in Appendix 4 of the Memorandum that the period of such notice is given as not less than three months. It is within the Minister's dis- 2108 cretion to decide whether in a particular case the circumstances are such that it is desirable to remove the structure. That is the general position regarding temporary houses.
I now come to the particular houses which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. He mentioned the Forster Road bungalow. Here it seems that the temporary prefabricated house is being flooded and that tine water is a nuisance. To remove and re-erect the bungalow—I do not go into the history of who is to blame and whether the local authority gave notice to the Ministry of Works about the subsoil—would cost £850. Clearly it would be wrong to waste material and resources to remove that temporary prefabricated bungalow, which is nearing the end of its life. It would be much better to use that money to make a permanent house.
The Weir Hall Road bungalow is a case where it is probable that the Ministry of Works did not provide adequate foundation. The local authority argue with some force and a great deal of merit that the responsibility is not theirs. To remove and re-erect that house and to consolidate its site will cost about £1,000. In all frankness we must say that that large sum of money is not—

§ Mr. Irving
If the Parliamentary Secretary will allow me to interrupt, did not the Tottenham Borough Council make an offer to the Ministry to undertake the work to the first bungalow that subsided for £200 and they refused to agree to that figure?

§ Mr. Marples
As far as I know, there is no question of £200 being the cost of the work. The estimate I have before me is £1,000 for this one and £850 for the other.

§ Mr. Irving
That is for completely dismantling and reassembling. In my opinion there is no need to dismantle and reassemble. All that is needed is the remedial work to the bungalow to do the reinforcements which should have been done when they were originally erected.

§ Mr. Marples
I speak with a little personal knowledge of this because, before I reached my present position I was a building contractor and I erected over 1,000 of these houses myself. It is always 2109 a difficult technical task to put the foundations right when there is a superstructure on those foundations. It is something which no contractor would enter into lightly and give a guarantee that the work would be satisfactory. I am not saying that in this Tottenham have not put up a good scheme but, in general, if I were back at my old job which I had to leave when I took up this office, I would say that I could take no responsibility for the work generally because work of that nature is pretty tricky.
A brick wall was suggested around one of the houses—the Forster Road bungalow—in order to try to keep the water from invading the house. Whether it would result in a satisfactory solution of the flooding is open to doubt. I have always found in building that it is much better to remove the cause of the damage—in this case the flooding—rather than to try to stop it coming into the house. If, however, Tottenham would like that looked at again I promise the hon. Gentleman to do so, but if that alternative method of putting up a wall —which frankly is a cheap job—

§ Mr. Irving
Will the Parliamentary Secretary give way again? The officials of the Ministry have been down and seen the job and their estimate is £175. If the base had been built six inches higher, as recommended by the borough engineer originally, this would have been avoided.

§ Mr. Marples
I would rather not enter into the question of who was responsible for the original damage because it would not help the case, but if that wall would provide the solution and that alternative remedy is desired by the Tottenham Borough Council, I promise the hon. Gentleman that we will look at it again. However, once that remedial work has been done, which may or may not result in a good job, there would be no question of accepting any further liability.
There is one other point, the question of the repairs to the temporary bungalows which will be a heavy burden on the finances either of the local authority or of the Exchequer. The local authorities are responsible for the repair and maintenance of the houses on their property, and the local authority is required 2110 to pay to the Minister a sum of £23 10s. a year for each house. An abatement of this amount may be allowed in any case in which the local authority, because of heavy maintenance costs of its temporary houses, finds that the charge on the housing revenue account exceeds more than the equivalent of £8 a year per house. In this way local authorities are protected against unduly heavy expenditure on maintenance.

§ Mr. Irving
Again, if I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman, that provides that where the amount exceeds £8—in this case all the bungalows—the amount is £16 which has to be found in addition to the £23 10s. a year a bungalow paid to the Department of the Minister.

§ Mr. Marples
If it exceeds the £8, they can apply for assistance, in which case it will not fall on the local authority. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) raised this point. He is not in his place now, but he asked if something could be done about the West Ham temporary prefabricated bungalows because they were causing the local authority a good deal of maintenance costs. If the hon. Gentleman cares to look up paragraph 39 of the Memorandum to which I referred earlier in my speech, he will find his answer there. I hope that as far as Tottenham is concerned, I have given the hon. Member some satisfaction by saying that we will look at that particular building.

§ Mr. Irving
If the Minister is not prepared to take on the work, it would be ridiculous to dismantle and re-erect it, because that would be far too expensive and we want to keep the dwelling if we can. Would the Minister be prepared to accept the Tottenham offer of doing the job themselves at £200 a bungalow?

§ Mr. Marples
I promised that I will look at it closely and will get my right hon. Friend to take into consideration all the points that both Tottenham and the hon. Member have put forward, but I do not think one can conclude a deal of that nature at this late hour after such a varying debate.

§ Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones (West Ham, South)
In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis), perhaps I may be permitted to ask a question about the observation 2111 of the Parliamentary Secretary. Was the hon. Gentleman conveying to the House that in certain contingencies the State would take on the responsibility of maintenance of these bungalows?

§ Mr. Marples
No. Under certain circumstances, the local authority will be able to make a claim for financial assistance if the repairing becomes excessive. It is referred to in paragraph 39 of the Memorandum, which I mentioned earlier, which was sent out with the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944. That is where the hon. Member will find the details.
After dealing with the Tottenham case, we had a long debate in which over a dozen Members took part, and it may not be easy for me to answer every hon. Member. As not many of them are now in their places, they cannot accuse me of discourtesy if I do not answer their questions. As there are 1,500 local authorities in the country and a good number of the hon. Members referred to the housing conditions in their areas, they will forgive me because I cannot carry details of the 1,500 local authorities in my head.
To the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short), I say that we were not laughing on the Front Bench at the deplorable housing position in the country as a whole or in Newcastle in particular. I was surprised that he accused Members on the Front Bench of doing that, because we were not, as, I think, he knows perfectly well. I also say to him that it would be unwise for me to enter into Newcastle's local political squabbles. There is always a great controversy when a block of flats is being erected. Some people say that it is too big, others say that there should be more houses and not flats, and there are those who say on amenity grounds that the design is wrong.
My right hon. Friend makes decisions, but I assure the hon. Member that he does not want to intervene in these local matters unless he cannot avoid it. He prefers to keep out of disputes. It is for Newcastle to settle for itself what building it wants. Once it has settled that, my right hon. Friend will not interfere, neither will he in any way bring pressure to bear on local authorities as regards allotting more houses to private builders. The ratio of one-half to private builders 2112 is permissive, and not mandatory. Under no circumstances will my right hon. Friend bring pressure to bear on any authority.

§ Mr. Short
As regards the flats scheme, the Minister will agree that he must give his consent before a scheme of that kind can go forward and that in giving his consent he will consider all the circumstances. This is one of the circumstances which I am asking him to consider: the very high rents which are to be charged for these flats.

§ Mr. Marples
The hon. Member has been rather dogmatic about the scheme as a whole and has given quite a number of views upon it. If the Minister has to decide on that Long Benton scheme, he will take all the questions into account, but if Newcastle can settle it without my right hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend will be indeed grateful. I should like to speak about housing generally.

§ Mr. P. Roberts
Before my hon. Friend goes on to that, I wonder whether he could give any indication on the point I raised which deals with the question of Sheffield? Can he say whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to try to redress the lack of houses authorised for Sheffield during the past'? Can he give an assurance that if there is any lack of building it will not be because of the lack of authority or licences issued by his Department?

§ Mr. Marples
I shall deal with that point in dealing with the general policy. The first requisite of a good housing policy is to create confidence in the building industry and the building materials industry. The only way to do that is by having an expanding rather than a contracting programme. A business either goes up or down, but very rarely remains stationary and if it is expanding more people are attracted to it.
The first thing my right hon. Friend did to create that confidence which hitherto has been missing in the housing field was to say to local authorities, "You can build as many houses as you have the materials and men to build." In other words, if there are resources in any particular area a local authority can apply and get further instalments of houses which they can build. Previously there was a rigid annual allocation for 2113 each local authority, and if a local authority had received the allocation of, say, 100 houses for a year and finished them in the first 10 months, they did not build for the last two months.

§ Mr. Elwyn Jones
Is it not the fact that during the time of the previous Administration there was never an occasion when the programme of a local authority was held up because it had reached the ceiling? Was not that the phenomenon of the situation right through?

§ Mr. Marples
All I can say to the hon. Member is that as there was a national ceiling, and when it was translated into local authority areas, it must have meant that there was a ceiling there as well for the simple reason that the housing figures for the last six months show what can be done when the ceiling is lifted. If the industry knows that there is a ceiling, obviously they will have no incentive to go above it.

§ Mr. Keenan
Is there not a ceiling at present?

§ Mr. Marples
No, my right hon. Friend has said there is not a ceiling at all. It is a much higher target, a 50 per cent. target.

§ Mr. Keenan
It is a ceiling.

§ Mr. Marples
No, that is the interim figure but this is the practice for the immediate future. In the last four or five years the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said at this Box, "We shall keep the housing programme at 200,000 a year." That was a rigid ceiling. If that is done we cannot get productivity.
Many hon. Members have said during this debate that a great deal of building has been cut down and that we are building houses because we are not building factories, or schools, or hospitals. Let us look at the housing labour force given in the housing return for 31st March. These are the figures. The labour force at 30th September, 1951, was 207,600 male operatives of 16 and over on new housing. On 31st December, 1951, the figure was 197,300. On 31st March, 1952—a provisional figure which may be subject to slight fluctuation—it was 205,900. So it can scarcely, be said that labour is leaving 2114 schools and going on to houses. The productivity of the building industry is tending to rise because there is a better supply of materials.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central put his finger on the crux of the housing problem when he said that it is the small practical things like nails and cement which count in house building. If the operatives know that materials will arrive, productivity will naturally and immediately increase. The figures have not been swollen out of proportion. I think there are a few more engaged now than in March, but I can assure the House that the figures have not been swollen.
What we have done with the materials is to concentrate first on increasing production, and there has been a greater increase in the output of building materials this last four or five months than in any previous four or five months since the war. Secondly we have concentrated on reducing the consumption of building materials in the non-housing sector of the building industry. That can be done quite easily by using certain methods—saving steel by using reinforced rods instead of heavy structural steel. By such means my right hon. Friend has achieved these results.
It is just as well to remind the House, because there has been a lot of party chatter into which I do not intend to enter, that completions are 20 per cent. more in the first quarter this year as against last year and that is still being carried on. Starts are more than 20 per cent. over those in the corresponding period last year and the number of houses available for letting is more than in the same period last year.

§ Mr. George Porter (Leeds, Central)
While the Parliamentary Secretary is on that point of making claims in regard to the finishing of houses during the last two or three months, does he remember his reply to me at Question time that he could not decide in regard to these houses how many had been started during the period of the previous Government?

§ Mr. Marples
I am always glad to see the hon. Member, who has just come into the Chamber, showing an interest in what I am saying. I did not see him during the debate, but if he had listened 2115 to some of the earlier remarks he would have realised that I was dealing with them.
When the Address in reply to the King's Speech was being debated the Opposition moved what was virtually a vote of censure on my right hon. Friend, and during that debate I think it was the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) who stood at that Despatch Box and said, "When are you going to get these 300,000 houses? In 1950? No. Well then what about 1951?" The tune has completely changed now. Merely because housing is increasing in tempo everyone opposite is saying, "These are the houses we laid down." Why ask us whether we will do it in 1950 or 1951 if that is the case?

§ Mr. Janner
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central may not have been here the whole time but I have. Is the Parliamentary Secretary going to give some reply to the very pertinent questions which I put to him?

§ Mr. Marples
I will certainly give some reply to what the hon. Member may call pertinent questions. I had another word for some of them. He knows perfectly well what I think of some of the points he made.

§ Mr. Janner
If the Parliamentary Secretary had dealt with them earlier he would have known what I think about what he thinks about them.

§ Mr. Marples
The hon. Member occupied a good deal of time, and the more dogmatic and emphatic he became the less convincing he was. I will deal with his points. Let me take the first one.

§ Mr. P. Roberts
Before my hon. Friend does so, will he say if I am right in assuming that the answer to the point I have been pressing is that it is up to the local authority to get on with the job?

§ Mr. Marples
Yes, if the local authority will ask the principal regional officer of the Ministry of Housing he will give all the assistance possible. If they can show that they have resources of men and materials they will be given additional instalments.

§ Mr. H. Nicholls
Will my hon. Friend answer the point put by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) about the land shortage in that part of the country being one of the difficulties? Would my hon. Friend consider freeing single plots from licensing altogether so that use can be made of land not within the scope of local housing plans?

§ Mr. Marples
It is a consideration which I will bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member should look at the Town Development Bill which allows for excessive population in congested areas going outside into expanded towns.
Now for a word or two about the rent tribunals. First, would the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) tell me whether the letter he read out came from a paid servant of a rent tribunal?

§ Mr. Janner
It came from the Clerk of the Chester Tribunal.

§ Mr. Marples
He was a paid servant who has a personal interest in keeping that tribunal alive—

§ Mr. Janner
rose—

§ Mr. Marples
No, I shall not give way to the hon. Member. I must appeal to the House. I have given way a reasonable amount and the hon. Member has had a long innings. Now I shall give him his answers. I wish to ask the hon. Member how many cases does that rent tribunal decide a week?

§ Mr. Janner
The answer is that it does not decide any now because the Government have stopped the rent tribunal.

§ Mr. Marples
How many cases has that rent tribunal decided in the last three months? Tell us.

§ Mr. Janner
I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Marples
This is a very important question—

§ Mr. Elwyn Jones
On a point of order. I have no desire to intervene in this squabble, but is it in order for a Minister of the Crown to allege in this House against a professional servant who is a clerk of a tribunal appointed by Her 2117 Majesty's Government that in some way or other his motives in regard to this tribunal are based upon professional, mercenary and personal interest and the continuance of his activities?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
That is not a point of order.

§ Mr. Marples
I am surprised at the hon. Member making that intervention. Any Member of the House who makes a contribution to debate normally tells the House what his personal interest is. I was merely finding out who the letter was from, I did not know who it was from. The hon. Member did not say.

§ Mr. Janner
On a point of order. Has a Minister, having asked a question, the right in this House to attack an individual?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The Minister is responsible for the statements he makes, not me.

§ Mr. Marples
I asked the hon. Member whether he knows how many cases this tribunal decides in a week. He has no idea how many it has decided in the last three months of its existence. The 2118 question to consider in respect of rent tribunals is what volume of work is being done by a particular tribunal.

§ Mr. Janner
Indeed it is not.

§ Mr. Marples
What has happened is that that particular tribunal was doing hardly any work at all. The applicants were going to the tribunal and not always the tribunal to the applicants. My right hon. Friend has regrouped the rent tribunals so that there is a mobile tribunal which will go to the applicant. The applicant will not have to go 20 or 30 miles, as the hon. Member has said the tribunal will go to the applicant if he makes an inquiry of the local authority. They have been so grouped that the number of references which these people will have to decide in a month is about 30.
Surely it cannot be said—