HC Deb 16 December 1965 vol 722 cc1601-12

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

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins (Norfolk, South-West)

Mr. Speaker, it is——

Mr. Speaker

Order. Will hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly? An hon. Member has the Adjournment debate.

Mr. Hawkins

It is a little difficult to return to a subject so far removed from the last battle which we have just concluded when we debated a question which moved the whole House. Nevertheless, the subject which I am raising tonight is of some importance.

Over some years, I have, as a land agent, found that the cost of improving older cottages and houses, surely a worthwhile job, has risen by more than 50 per cent. On visiting many villages in my constituency, I have also had many complaints from tenants of older council houses of the lack of modern sanitary and other amenities. In answer to a Question a few weeks ago, the Minister of Housing and Local Government estimated—I gather that there are no proper records—that there were 500,000 council houses in England and Wales still without baths, W.C.s and the rest. This means that about 1½ million people are living in sub-standard publicly-owned houses. This is no example to set to the nation in the big housing drive which the Government are now undertaking.

I understand from replies I have had from local councils—there are no records at the Ministry—that there seem to be in my constituency at least 700 houses of this type. Some councils have completed work on all their houses. Others, through no fault of their own, I think, have several hundreds to do. I was given the answer that there were 32,000 council houses improved in England and Wales in 1964. At the present rate of improvement, it will be about 15 years before all council houses are so improved.

In my opinion, this is far too long. I am convinced that, when the older tenants leave, and certainly in five years, councils will have great difficulty in finding new tenants to fill these houses unless they are modernised. Yet these same houses are, in the majority of cases, solid and sound, no land is needed except perhaps for sewerage works, and, surely, the present tenants deserve better treatment. That is the extent of the problem as regards council houses, and it explains why I ask for a speeding up of the modernisation programme for council houses.

Will the Minister set a good example by asking all local authorities to prepare plans to give these 500,000 houses all essential amenities by 1970, five years ahead? Will he also give then some extra assistance for the work?

I now come to the modernisation of privately-owned houses, old but sound houses such as hon. Members on both sides know to exist in large numbers. There are many of these houses, 30 to 100 years old, still with a long life ahead of them but without modern amenities. A lot of good work has been done over the past few years, but owners are now beginning to wonder, with the increased costs, whether it is still good business to carry on the improvement. But, if the works are not carried out, tenants leave and the houses fall into disrepair and finally are pulled down.

As a land agent, I manage several small estates. Some 15 years ago we started on a modernisation programme to bring up to date all the houses and cottages on the estates that I look after. The cost then was about £700 to £800 per house and a grant up to £400 maximum which was about 50 per cent. of the cost.

This made the job really worth while for the owner, for the tenant, who then occupied a much better house, and, for that matter, for the nation. Now, however, the same works are costing between £1,000 and £1,200. I understand that the cost of house building has gone up about 59 per cent. since 1956 so it is about on a par with these costs. Yet the same maximum figure of £400 in grant is still payable for such modernisation except, I believe, in the case of three-storey houses of which we have not many in South-West Norfolk. In their case, the grant is £500. Whereas, however, the grant 15 years ago was about 50 per cent. of the cost now it is a little over 30 per cent.

If, at a cost of some £1,100 to £1,200, with a grant of £600, a house which otherwise might be written off could be made into a really good home for a family, surely it is well worth increasing the maximum grant. The alternative is to buy land which is scarce, and to spend two-and-a half to three times as much in building a house.

Land is scarce and so is labour, while materials are costly. Only a short time ago, materials were also in very short supply. I am convinced that this modernisation is one way in which all three—labour, materials and land—can be saved and the housing programme speeded up.

The essence of the matter is that the housing programme is the major social problem of the day. I know that both sides of the House are convinced of that. The Minister himself has said so on many occasions and I am also convinced that bad housing can lead to many other social evils. I feel sure that hon. Members on both sides agree that anything that can be done to solve the problem should be undertaken.

The savings that improvements of this nature can bring about include, as I have said, land, materials and money, but in addition I believe that other important agencies could be brought into the programme in this way which have not played a very big part in major schemes of house building for sale or to let. For instance, small building firms cannot tender to build 50 or even 25 houses but they can surely undertake modernisation programmes in rural district council areas of, say, 10 or 15 houses. In this work also, direct labour forces can play a bigger part. Finally, it is a part of the housing programme in which I am convinced private enterprise, properly encouraged, could well do a lot.

I want in all seriousness to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary whether he agrees that the modernisation of older houses has a very important part to play in the housing programme, which lies ahead of us for many years to come. In my district, in every village and small town, there are rows of houses and single houses which are solid, extremely well built and which, for this expenditure, could be made better houses in many cases than many of the small bungalows being erected today. They would last for many more years. Modernisation can also save land which, even in an agricultural district—indeed, perhaps particularly in an agricultural district—is so important a factor.

In conclusion, I wish to put what I hope will be a few constructive suggestions to help to speed up the modernisation of privately and publicly owned houses. I want first to refer to council houses. I was surprised by an Answer I got which implied that the Ministry did not have at its command figures to tell it how many council houses did not have modern amenities. I urge the immediate calling for a return so that an accurate assessment of the problem can be made. Action can then be taken, smaller builders encouraged, councils urged to complete all their houses by 1970, and additional financial help being given.

Turning to improvement grants for privately owned houses; the most important matter is to raise the maximum grant. I suggest a figure of 50 per cent. of cost. In every case of an improvement grant, the job has to be put out to tender and one is thus safeguarded when allowing a proportion of cost. Allowing the figure of 50 per cent. would take care of the special cases of three-storey houses and of the isolated houses and those not on a sewerage system and so on, all of which are far more expensive jobs than houses in urban districts with sewerage systems and water supplies easy and to hand. I therefore suggest raising the maximum possible grant to 50 per cent. of the cost. This would raise the grant to a maximum of about £600. I understand, although I am subject to correction, that this would not require legislation but would be within the Minister's discretion.

The Minister should allow both standard and discretionary grants to be paid when two small cottages are knocked into one dwelling. There have been a number of examples in my constituency—and over the year I have put forward one or two to the Minister—of grants being refused because of difficulties over this matter.

There should be an appeal system so that owners can challenge a council's ruling that a house does not have a life of 15 years. I know that the Minister has rightly said that councils must treat these applications with the greatest sympathy, but the variation between one council district and another is extraordinary. I have inspected houses—and I know a little about the subject—one in an urban district and one on the fringe, within a mile of each other, very similar houses, when grants have been refused for one. In one case the better house was refused while the inferior house was given a grant. There should be some means by which the Minister could lay down a much more careful standard and it would be a help if there could be some appeal from the council's ruling. However fairly councils try to deal with these applications, there is always left in people's minds some sense of injustice because of the variations.

Finally, I urge the Minister to make another determined attempt to persuade councils to operate the discretionary grant system. I know that it has been tried time and time again. I would like these grants to be compulsory, as standard grants are, but I know that the Minister does not want to use compulsory powers if that is possible. However, it is wholly wrong that because a house is in one council area a grant is payable, while a similar house in an adjoining area cannot be given a grant.

In this short debate on a subject about which I have some personal and professional knowledge I have tried to show how one corner of the housing programme could be speeded up with relatively little expenditure of labour, materials and money, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say that he, too, regards it as an important matter.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. John Brewis (Galloway)

I should like to ask the Minister why, under the farm improvement scheme, it is impossible to get grants towards the improvement of agricultural houses while it is possible to get grants for doing up houses for various kinds of animals. This may seem to be a silly point, but its effect is that people in the country are not building new houses but are tinkering about with and doing up old houses. In the long run, it must be a very shortsighted policy to do up older houses rather than to build new ones.

10.30 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish)

I am sure that all hon. Members will agree with me in thanking the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) for the courteous and efficient way in which he has put his case. It was backed with a great deal of personal knowledge, and the House is always appreciative when an hon. Member speaks from such genuine knowledge of the subject.

Both the hon. Member and I are basically at one over his subject for this Adjournment debate. We are agreed that improvement has an important part to play if the nation's housing stock is to be used to the best advantage. I will go on to admit on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister that we are very disappointed with the present rate of house improvement.

I cannot, however, forbear to point out that the trouble started when improvement grants lost ground following the financial restrictions imposed in 1961. In 1960, 131,000 grants were approved. By 1962 the figure had fallen to 111,000. Since then, to their credit, successive Governments, both Conservative and Labour, have been trying to recover from that setback. In 1964 the figure for improvement grants was 121,000. This year it was 107,000 up to the end of October. So there is an excellent chance that despite the action that had to be taken to safeguard the economy, more grants will be given this year than in 1964. But that is still not enough. There is certainly not going to be any repetition of what happened in 1961. There will not be a general cut-back this year.

We have recognised from the outset that house improvements are an essential part of the housing programme, and, as everyone knows, this programme has not been affected by the current financial restrictions. The White Paper explicitly recognised the importance of doing work to improve the condition of existing houses as well as of building new houses and the Government intend to see that a proper share of building resources is devoted to the maintenance and repair of older houses and to stepping up the rate of improvement.

This task is an important part of the duties of the Ministry's regional offices. They have the job of persuading those councils which are not yet convinced of the value of house improvement how worthwhile it really is. I freely admit that this is a job of persuasion. The architects at the Ministry's regional offices can easily visit councils to give on-the-spot advice about improvement schemes; and the staff has been augmented by the appointment of building surveyors who will specialise on this side of the work. The officers at headquarters give exactly the same service for authorities in those parts of the country where there are no regional offices.

Earlier this year, we relaxed the administrative procedures, because we felt that this would help to speed up the approval of improvement grants. In the circular announcing this relaxation, my right hon. Friend told local authorities that he would no longer hold them to the purely administrative requirements which they previously had to observe in order to receive Exchequer contribution towards grant. He asked them to apply their own judgment to the circumstances of each application and to bear in mind that the essential purpose was to modernise as many old houses as possible which are in good structural condition. The hon. Member and I, therefore, are not quarrelling about this.

In that circular, my right hon. Friend assured councils that in future Exchequer contributions would be paid automatically for all grants made to private owners where the local authorities were satisfied that the statutory requirements were fulfilled and that it would be right to pay grant—if they were satisfied, we were satisfied. My right hon. Friend undertook to apply the same principles when he himself dealt with applications from local authorities for the improvement of their own houses.

Since the Housing Act 1964, local authorities have been able to use the stick of compulsion as well as the carrot of grant in securing the improvement of privately rented property. So far they have been very sparing with the stick. I am bound to say that in my opinion they could have made far greater use of the provisions for compulsory improvement introduced by the last Government. Of some 1,400 authorities concerned in England and Wales, up to 30th September last only 44 had taken the initial step of declaring a compulsory improvement area. This is very slow progress, especially when compared with the scope for the improvement of privately rented houses. Landlords at present take less than one-third of all private improvement grants, the remainder going to owner-occupiers. Councils will need to show much more determination in exercising their compulsory powers. I realise that the procedure is not always easy to operate, and the Government are watching to see what particular difficulties arise in using it that need to be put right, but authorities ought to be doing more now.

It will of course help if authorities can point to their own example in pressing ahead with the modernisation of houses belonging to them which need it.

No one should belittle the efforts which councils have already made to bring their houses up to contemporary standards. Out of the grand total of 956,000 improvement grants which had been paid up to the end of October, about 240,000, or 25 per cent., went to local authorities. About 161,000 of these grants were to instal basic facilities in council houses and the remaining 79,000 were for the improvement or conversion to a higher standard of houses with a potentially longer life.

I agree, however, that there is still a long way to go. It is estimated that over half a million houses belonging to local authorities remain unmodernised.

We must accept that pre-war council houses were not always as well built as they might have been. In those days councils often had to skimp and scrape on their housing schemes. Some of the houses on pre-war estates cannot be accepted as tolerable living accommodation for the second half of the twentieth century. It is a very different tale from today when the whole aim of the Government is to see that local authority houses are designed to the highest standards possible with the help of the generous new subsidy arrangements which we were debating last night.

I am delighted to see the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) here tonight. I know that both he and the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West will agree that it is right to insist that Parker-Morris standards are maintained.

The completion of more and more of these high-standard houses will emphasise the difference between the facilities offered by them and by pre-war houses. In fairness to the families living in these older houses, some councils may need to speed up their modernisation programmes and consider whether they go far enough.

Not all the unmodernised houses belonging to local authorities are pre-war council houses. A number are older houses which have been bought by councils for various reasons. Some, for example, are houses which were decontrolled by the Rent Act, 1957, and which have been bought by councils in order to prevent tenants from being rendered homeless under the threat of exorbitant rents. Others have been acquired in advance of redevelopment schemes. Yet others have been bought by some councils for the precise purpose of improving and modernising them. In these instances, too, there is plenty of scope for authorities to bring up to date property which they own.

At this stage I think it only fair to say the grants for council house improvements suffered particularly from the action in 1961. They reached a peak of 42,000 in 1960 and then fell right back to 31,000. In 1964 they were still only 32,000. But what is the picture this year? I am glad to say that by the end of October, 33,000 local authority improvements had been agreed to, which was more than in the whole of 1964. I think these figures speak for themselves on whether this Government regards the modernisation of council houses—one of the two topics mentioned in the hon. Member's motion—as being important.

The other subject with which the hon. Gentleman dealt is the need to increase improvement grants. I have already spoken of the Government's desire to increase the total number of grants. As far as the amount of grant is concerned, it is true that the normal maximum for discretionary grants, which aim to improve or convert a house to a high standard, has not changed since 1952. The normal Exchequer contribution towards council house modernisation is three-eighths of the loan charges for twenty years on the estimated cost of improvement works, up to a maximum of £800. At current interest rates, this works out at about £28 a year for 20 years, representing about 10s. 9d. a week towards the rent of an improved house. The situation is being carefully watched, but there is no evidence that local authorities are holding back from improving their houses because they consider the rate of Exchequer contribution is insufficient.

Discretionary grants to private owners consist of a free gift of up to £400. They are paid regardless of the owner's means and are a generous contribution towards the cost of improving old houses.

Expenditure may have to be incurred on repairs before an authority will pay a grant, but it is not unreasonable to expect an owner who is receiving substantial help of this order from public funds to be prepared to spend some money out of his own pocket for this purpose. Indeed, as well as giving a grant a local authority can make a loan to cover both the owner's share of the improvement costs and his expenditure on repairs.

It is significant that the average discretionary grant paid by councils in England and Wales last year was well within the normal £400 maximum, being about £310 for conversions and about £270 for improvements. The average figures for Norfolk were £298 for conversions, and £304 for improvements.

Higher grants than the maximum are given to meet the higher costs arising on the conversion of a three-storey house. They can also be given for particularly expensive improvement works to old tenement blocks when it is often necessary to take in some of the existing dwellings to provide space for a water closet and bathroom for each of the improved flats.

The greater care required and special problems involved in improving or converting buildings of special historic or architectural interest often increase the cost of works. Higher grants are available where improvement costs attributable to the preservation of the building's special character cannot be met within normal grant limits.

Higher grants can also be paid where stone or other solid floors have to be replaced in order to overcome rising dampness.

Time is running out, and I want to get in this important part of my speech. The system of improvements grants was amended as recently as last year by the previous Government, and the changes introduced then have to be given time to work. But the Government are anxious to see—and this is not a party political point—a substantial increase in the rate of improvement of both council and private houses, and are examining the present system to see how it could be made more effective. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the 15 years. I think that this is one of the points at which we have to look to see whether it is right. Another is the question of standards of fitness. The whole question has to be looked at again in the light of modern trends, and we have a special committee which, I understand, will report on this matter early in the new year.

Any suggestions on this will be welcomed. I do not say that my right hon. Friend will accept them all, but I should like to hear suggestions from the hon. Gentleman. He has great knowledge on this matter, and he will be welcome at my Ministry at any time. The door is open, and we shall be pleased to hear what he thinks should be done, and any proposals that he has to make for the particular circumstances of rural—

The Question having been proposed after Ten 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 sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.