§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Oakshott.]
§ 11.18 p.m.
§ Miss Elaine Burton (Coventry, South)I think that the speed with which we have reached the Adjournment has rather caught the Parliamentary Secretary of Housing and Local Government unawares. I seem to be here before he is.
The question of housing in Coventry, of course, preceded the war. I have raised it twice before in the House, and I think our case is such a strong one that there is no need for me to make it in any party sense. Therefore, I want to go 1539 through the reasons as quickly as possible, setting out why we in Coventry think that particular attention should be paid by the Minister to our problem.
First, Coventry is producing in value two-thirds of the total British rearmament programme. It has also, as I believe everybody knows, played a great part in the export programme, particularly through the motor car industry. Indeed, some hon. Members may remember only last week reading of a more powerful jet engine than has hitherto been developed being produced and type tested in Coventry. In fact, the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire Seven is adding new lustre to the industry of our country. The part that Coventry is playing in defence and the export programme is, I know, fully realised by the Government.
The second point I want to put to the Parliamentary Secretary is this. In 1939, the population of Coventry was 190,000; today, it is approximately 264,000. In 1947, we had a review of the people already on our housing list. At that time, and after the review, we found that 11,300 applicants were actually on the list. There were also a further 500 in temporary accommodation and a further 1,500 in seriously unfit property. That, as the Parliamentary Secretary will know, gave us a total of 13,300 people actually waiting for accommodation, and I would emphasise that it is clear from those figures that we have in Coventry a hard core of housing applications which remains around the 10,000 mark.
There is little or no chance, I would say, of our clearing these off within a reasonable number of years, unless the Minister will allow us to build to the maximum capacity of which we are capable. So we are saying to the Minister tonight that because of these two factors—the heavy and continued migration to our city and the desire of the Government that we should continue to play our part in this defence and export programme—we believe that Coventry justifies a claim for special treatment in the 'housing of its workers.
On 21st October, during a debate in the House, I asked the Minister if we could undertake in Coventry immediately the construction of a further 500 houses. This we were in a position to do because of 1540 the long-term planning of the Coventry Corporation. It was necessary to stress, and we did so, that all the administrative arrangements had been made, and, indeed, with the encouragement of the previous Minister, that roads and sewers were available to deal with a further 4,200 houses. This was ample for an extended programme for 1954, and for a substantial proportion of the 1955 programme. Something which is important is that every one of these 500 houses could have been, and would have been, produced by non-traditional methods; such as those used by Messrs. Wimpey who have, for example, built the very fine neighbourhood unit of Tile Hill, in my own constituency.
Following that debate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), whom I am glad to see here tonight, and I went to see the Parliamentary Secretary. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying that he sent us both a letter afterwards agreeing that we had been able to establish for Coventry the fact that it had a special position, distinguishing it from other local authorities. What was the result of that interview? The Parliamentary Secretary told us that we were to have had a programme for 1955 of 1,250 allocations for municipal housing, but in view of the representations made by my hon. Friend and myself he agreed that to this should be added a further 250.
This means that we were to have a total of 1,500 municipal housing allocations for 1955. Although I expressed gratitude for the extra 250 when I wrote to the hon. Gentleman, I told him that we were far from satisfied, and I was afraid that he might think we were rather unappreciative, but I wondered whether he realised that this new total, with the addition that he had given us, was still a cut of 500 on the number allowed in the current year?
I would like to go on from there and explain to the hon. Gentleman why my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East and I felt that this figure was not good enough. We have in Coventry more than 2,000 applications for council tenancies every year, and, therefore, the rate suggested, which was 1,500 for new municipal housing, was not enough to cope even with the number of new applicants. That would be serious enough, 1541 but if we take into account the fact that we have a hard core of 10,000 names on our housing list, apart from the new applications every year, it becomes even worse.
To be perfectly fair, the Parliamentary Secretary said that his figures for municipal housing must be added to those houses to be put up by private builders. That we accept, and there is no doubt that his reasoning will give private builders greater scope for building houses for sale. I wish to stress that this is not a party point, but I think it will have a most unfair result. In view of the heavy migration of workers to Coventry, who are needed to take part in the defence and export programmes, it means that people coming into the city, if they have the money, will be able to buy houses put up by private enterprise, and to obtain those houses long before those who have been on the housing list for so long are able to get municipal houses. We believe that that is indefensible.
I wish to say two things to the Parliamentary Secretary of which he may not be aware. This week-end I was in Coventry and spoke to the chairman and other members of the housing committee. They assured me that they had had discussions with private estate agents whose opinion was that the shortage of privately-owned sites provided with roads and sewers would mean that the production of private enterprise sponsored housing is unlikely to exceed the present level; and in his letter the Parliamentary Secretary assumed something quite different.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman may not realise the high rents demanded of workers coming to Coventry. Only on Saturday a young man told me that he had to pay £2 a week for two unfurnished rooms, and I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that he was lucky. I would emphasise that some of the rents charged are exorbitant. But workers have to go somewhere and those who cannot get council houses have to pay. We feel that if we are not allowed to build to the limit of our capacity, this unfair profiteering will go on.
On the other hand, the members of the housing committee assured me that they had in hand sites already provided with sewers and roads for an increasing 1542 tempo of house building based on an anticipated progressive increase of the allocation of 2,033 for this year. We have always been told in the past, and we could understand it, that we could not build more houses because we had not the labour or the materials. We tell the Minister now that we have the labour. It has been brought into the city by, for example, Messrs. Wimpey, and we have the materials.
Unless the Minister changes his mind, or, if it will make it easier, I will say that unless he changes the mind of his predecessor, it means that this Government will prevent the Coventry Corporation from starting to build, and substantially completing, 1,837 dwellings for which the land, sewers, roads, plans and tenders are all available. Some of these could have been started this year had the allocation been sufficient.
Perhaps I need not tell the Minister that 576 of these dwellings have actually received the final approval of the Corporation and the financial approval of his own regional office. It seems to me that the position is so clear and the need of Coventry so self-evident in this matter that there is no need to make it a party matter. I am particularly glad that in the Coventry City Corporation this position is realised and that we have complete all-arty agreement on this plea that I am advancing to the Minister tonight. That, I think, will perhaps make him consider the position more carefully.
In discussing this matter with the chairman of the housing committee this weekend, I was asked if, when I raised the issue tonight, I would give an invitation, on behalf of that committee, and its chairman, to the Minister—and this, of course, is in no way intended as a discourtesy to the Parliamentary Secretary, as I know he will appreciate—to come to Coventry and see the position for himself.
We give that invitation for two reasons. First, we know that as past Minister of Supply, he appreciates the great part being played in Coventry in the export field and for defence. Secondly, if he would come to Coventry to see the real need of which I speak, we are certain that he would be convinced after having judged the position for himself on the spot. I hope that I have not been too 1543 long in putting my case, and that, if there is time, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East will support what I have had to say.
§ 11.34 p.m.
§ Mr. Crossman (Coventry, East)There is very little that I can add to the admirable case which has been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss. Burton), although there are two things which I would like to say. First, I should like to underline the invitation which she has made, and to say that we are always anxious to welcome a new Minister to Coventry because we find, particularly in the matter we are discussing tonight, that it is difficult to get an understanding of the peculiar problem of that city.
I think that perhaps one of the reasons for this cut is that the time has come for an increase in the proportion of houses for sale as against those for renting, and I agree that we have a wage level in Coventry which would enable large numbers of workers to buy their own houses. A large number of the solid Labour workers who vote for me own their own houses, but then we have the immigrant worker and he is the lowest paid when he comes into the city. He comes probably as casual labour, and it is only later that he graduates to the higher rates.
We are not dealing only with those people who work in motor vehicle factories. We have a large number of people for whom houses for sale are out of the question and we have, in fact, made a special study to see how many people on our housing lists might be capable of buying houses; and, in common with other cities, we have seen that those whose social need is the greatest are the people who are not able to buy houses. Therefore, the need for municipal housing is as high in Coventry as anywhere else in the west Midlands.
Furthermore, it is true in our city—and I do not claim any great credit for this—that immediately after the war we put industrial development above municipal housing. Much of our building trade labour went into the motor vehicle and other industrial factories, and we could not recruit sufficient local labour able to do the job. It is only because large firms, 1544 like Messrs. Wimpey, for instance, being in their own labour force that housing on a large scale has been made possible at all. What we in Coventry say is that if the rapid, large-scale house construction which we require for our own immigrant population is to be completed, then it is necessary that Messrs. Wimpey and other large firms should be there.
But the Minister's action is preventing the building of what can be built not only during this year, but also in the next. The figures have been given. We could have built hundreds more houses this year. Nearly 1,800 houses will be forbidden us next year by a Minister who is proud of releasing people from building controls. I am beginning to get a new understanding of what the end of building controls means. It means the end of limitations upon building for sale and the imposition of bans upon municipal building for rental. It means setting the private builder free and shackling the corporations and preventing them from building as much as quickly and efficiently as they can.
I hope that I have not said something unfair, but I should very much like to hear the Minister's reply to that problem, because from a Government which claim to say, "We want to build as much as we can" it is surprising to find, in Coventry, the Government saying, "You are not to build 1,800 houses, which you could have built in the next 18 months." Three weeks after being told that building controls have been abolished, I find that a surprising paradox. I should like the Minister to give an explanation of that paradox, not in terms of the numbers of houses for sale and the number for renting, but in terms of the ability of Coventry to solve its urgent housing problem. I hope that the hon. Member can answer this point.
§ 11.36 p.m.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes)First, I should like to apologise to the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) for missing the first moment or two of her speech. Secondly, I congratulate the hon. Lady upon her persistence. Although she does not always get what she wants, she never gives up trying. I think that this is our third encounter upon this subject within even the short span of my term of 1545 office. In this instance perhaps I should not count upon the magic of the figure 3.
I begin by saying that I and my right hon. Friend recognise the unusual position of Coventry in respect of development. Industrially, it is a phenomenal town, with a legacy of war-time destruction and, at present, tremendous industrial pressure from within. We discussed that fact when we met some time ago. It is generally recognised, and in answering I want to refer to a letter from the Coventry Council, addressed to my right hon. Friend, concerning the Coventry case. That case is understood by us, and I hope that the hon. Lady does not think otherwise. Our differences in this field—which are not very great—lie in our respective estimates of Coventry's physical capacity to meet her undeniably great needs. To meet the hon. Lady's points requires a certain number of figures, but she and I are tolerably familiar with them, and at this hour we shall not confuse anyone's statistics except those who are specially interested in them.
First, I should like to say something about the 1954 programme, on the known figures. On 30th October, 1954, Coventry had completed 1,125 local authority houses and had 2,347 in hand. It is fair to add that 779 private enterprise houses were completed and 1,401 being built. Our estimate is that by 31st December, Coventry will have completed 1,425 local authority houses and 975 private enterprise houses—a total of 2,400.
Before dealing with the current allocation I should say that Coventry will begin 1955 with 2,050 local authority houses and between 1,600 and 1,700 private enterprise houses in hand. Taking the question now only in terms of local authority houses, with an allocation of 1,500 there is a programme of 3,550 houses in hand or in prospect at the beginning of the year. I would make the point that that is very far from being a contemptible figure, and it is fair to compare it with an estimate of 1,500 applications for this year.
To show the hon. Lady that I understand Coventry's problems—and I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman)—I make no reference to, or play with, 1546 figures for construction between 1946 and 1051. I appreciate that those are not in the least relevant to what is now under discussion. The completions in 1954 are, I think, a fairer yardstick—indeed, they are the fair yardstick—given the increased tempo which, I acknowledge, is going on in Coventry more than in most places.
Private enterprise housing in Coventry is going ahead extraordinarily well. I would associate that, perhaps not unfairly, not only with the high wages in the town caused by the high industrial potential, but also with the wealthy immigrants to whom the hon. Lady referred. If one is to assume that the local builders know what they are doing, those houses are being built in response to some local demand, so it is fair to treat them as an integral part of Coventry's construction programme. There were 1,401 under construction at the end of October, and this should rise to 1,500 completions in 1955.
May I just take up the hon. Lady's point by saying that our estimate for 1955 and 1956 is about 1,500 private enterprise houses. That, naturally, is a very broad estimate As there were, on 31st October of this year, 1,400 under construction and 220 waiting to be started, we are not assuming any great increase from now on in regard to private enterprise building. That means that, with local authority completions, there will be about 3,300 houses built in 1955.
All predictions for the future are most hazardous, but it looks as though, in 1956, building might be running at about 3,600 a year, or a little more. At least, at this point, one can see no reason why it should be less, judging by the prospective local authority programme and the way private enterprise figures are running.
I join issue with what the hon. Member for Coventry, East suggested. The programme is based on an ascending scale. The difference between us is how sharp that ascending scale should be. The argument is not that we are not giving Coventry all she wants—I frankly admit that we are not—or that more should be built each year, because I think it is incontestable that more will be built. I have to argue whether the figure is fair and reasonable 1547 in all the circumstances and will not damage the momentum of Coventry's housing drive. On the figures I have given that cannot be damaged, but I want to stress that there is a danger—in fact, a greater danger—not of underloading but of overloading Coventry's programme, bearing in mind the work going on in other constructional fields there. The result of overloading would be to delay completions.
The hon. Lady has referred to a possible visit by my right hon. Friend. Knowing that this invitation was likely to be extended, I have spoken to him. He and I have already a fairly ambitious itinerary for January, but my right hon. Friend will certainly consider whether he can make a visit to Coventry, not, perhaps I should stress, for the specific purpose of discussing housing allocation, 1548 but to see and admire—as I should wish to on such a visit—the reconstruction and other matters of a general nature going on there. He has asked me to tell the hon. Lady that he will most certainly consider that invitation and see whether he can accept it.
The hon. Lady will not be satisfied by what I have said—I know her far too well for that—but I do not think she can conclude that either she or Coventry has been hardly or unfairly treated. If she will examine the figures which I have given, I think she will agree that, on balance, we are providing Coventry with a programme which, in fairness to Coventry, represents about the best which we think Coventry can achieve.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter to Twelve o'Clock.