HC Deb 09 December 1966 vol 737 cc1824-6

3.55 p.m.

Mr. John Forrester (Stoke-on-Trent, North)

I beg to move, That this House accepts that compensation in respect of houses found unfit for human habitation and scheduled for clearance should not impose an undue charge upon local authorities who are responsible for re-housing the displaced families, but calls upon Her Majesty's Government to consider by what means hardship to innocent individuals caused by the present rules of compensation could be mitigated. In the few minutes which are available I wish to draw the attention of the House to some of the problems facing us over slum clearance. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will forgive me if I do not leave him time in which to reply. The clearing away of the slums of this country is still one of our most pressing problems. The purpose of the Motion is not to suggest that we should spread around the money that is so far available upon less slum clearance, but that we should make more money available and clear more slums, so that people will be adequately compensated for property which they have lost.

This week the Minister of Housing and Local Government said that we still have at least 1 million slums and 2 million houses which are substandard. There are about 51½ million houses which were built before 1900 and about 7 million which were built by 1919. Slums are being created by virtue of age faster than we are able to pull them down. As people's standard of living rises, this problem will become insuperable unless it is tackled now with the utmost consistent effort.

This is a national problem, not a problem associated with one or two local authorities. Some local authorities suffer much more than others. Unfortunately. many industrial cities are the main sufferers from this problem which they did not create, which they did not want and in which we should sympathise greatly with them. But even more than sympathy they need financial help. They have inherited a task of great magnitude.

The privilege of being in the forefront of Britain's industrial progress has left in its wake a legacy for these cities of decaying property which will require great energy, resources and finance to eradicate. Having played such a major part in creating the wealth from which the whole country has benefited, is it right that these local authorities should be asked to bear such a large share of the burden without more adequate assistance from the rest of the community through the Exchequer? There are many things which I could say on that point.

It is true that subsidies have been consistently paid for slum clearance when other housing subsidies have not been paid. Since 1951, about six or seven changes have been made in the rate of the subsidy. Sometimes it has gone up, sometimes it has gone down. Could not the Government devise their finances in such a way that local authorities know for a considerable period in advance what they can expect by way of subsidy? This would help them to go in for adequate planning and it would help the people in the houses. A person may be visited by an inspector who says, "Your house will be coming down at such and such a time. Do not do any more repairs or any more decorating. You would be only throwing your money away". Then the Government perhaps change the subsidy. The local authority appreciates the position and decides to revise its slum clearance pro- gramme and perhaps the people in the houses who expected to be moved may remain there for 12 months or two years longer than they anticipated, and the process of decay in their property continues.

I am concerned particularly with the problems of hardship associated with the people who have spent their savings or earnings over many years to buy a small house in which to live in their old age. This is a very grave problem. They are suddenly faced with an authority which tells them, "We are sorry but your house must come down". They do not receive what to them or to many of us is adequate compensation under the complicated system of paying compensation, whether it be on the basis of site value, or "well maintained" allowances, or whether the people are the fortunate ones who get supplementary payments under an Act introduced fairly recently.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House. That Act was not brought in recently. The Act which provided for the "well maintained" payment was introduced by a Conservative Government.

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

But it was extended by the present Government to give even greater justice than the previous Act.

Mr. Graham Page

No

Mr. Forrester

This argument can continue afterwards. I was referring to the Act brought in by the last Government. I am sure that both the hon. Member and my hon. Friend are right in their separate ways. The point is whether enough Government compensation is being given to people turned out of their houses who often do not wish to be turned out. They are then faced with the problem of setting up new homes and having to spend considerable sums of money on fixtures, furnishings, and so on, having received inadequate compensation from the Government—

It being Four o'clock