CHALKHILL ESTATE, BRENT (RENTS) (Hansard, 2 July 1969)

§ Mr. Laurence Pavitt (Willesden, West)
On 14th May the Brent Borough Council decided not to apply a rent rebate scheme, which has been the practice of that council for some years, to a new estate on Chalkhill. This decision was probably taken against the best advice of the excellent officers who have served the borough for so long.
603 That simple act is the cause of my drawing the attention of the House of Commons to the consequences which have flown and will flow from that very awkward decision. In my view, it shows the majority party in Brent completely devoid of humanity and compassion in dealing with what has been the greatest problem in my constituency and with which I have regaled the House from time to time over the last 10 years.
I believe that it is irresponsible because it is pursuing a doctrinaire Conservative political policy. It is incompetent because of its failure to protect the interests of the ratepayers. It is entirely untrustworthy because it is withdrawing solemn undertakings given in public both in the High Court and at Ministry public inquiries on which compulsory purchase orders of property have been secured. It places snob values above human needs, property above people, and pounds, shillings and pence above family life.
On those grounds I am opposed to the decision, and I hope that it will eventually be changed.
I will not weary the House with the intensity of the problem, because I have described our housing difficulties on frequent occasions. However, I should like to quote from a letter of 16th June which I received from my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on one sector of the housing problem in my area. My hon. Friend wrote: There are 56 families (256 persons) in temporary accommodation and a further 14 families accommodated outside the Borough. Of the 123 families who applied for admission in the last quarter of 1968, only 23 were admitted—a ratio significantly below the average, suggesting that they are less able than most authorities to meet the demands on them for temporary accommodation. This is one hard sector of the problem. But because Brent has one of the greatest housing problems in London, it also has the greatest costs, and these have to be met. Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, when he was at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, for the first time since I have been a Member of Parliament daylight started to emerge with the tremendous programme that was introduced by the Labour Administration in 1964 for the redevelopment of South Kilburn, Stone- 604 bridge and Church End in my constituency.
These schemes will provide for a total of 2,873 families to be rehoused. This tremendous problem would take at least a quarter of a century if it were not for the foresight of the previous Administration in having this Chalkhill estate which, at present, has 1,281 units almost ready, and another 368 will be ready by January next year.
Because of this scheme a rent rebate scheme was envisaged, and with this it would take about five years to crack the hard nut of the problem which I have been trying to tackle. It was intended to provide a decanting area for slum clearance in Willesden, improvement areas, and comprehensive development areas.
To substantiate why I say that the council has gone back on its promises, I refer to the public inquiry of 16th October, 1968, into the Church End development area conducted by the inspector, Mr. Oswald. The council, in paragraph 53 of its case, said: The necessary rehousing of existing occupiers…will be ensured by the completion of the council's extensive redevelopment at Chalkhill…here a total of 1,622 dwelling units are under construction. That was the reason why the compulsory purchase order was granted.
In my submission to the inquiry I expressed concern about whether any revision of the rent rebate scheme would mean that Chalkhill would be too dear for tenants decanted from Church End. In reply, the inspector said, in paragraph 199: Mr. L. Pavitt's comments reflect an understandable wish to see fair play for displaced persons and others, but the Council state that their rent rebate scheme will afford help as necessary to individual cases. The fact that the rent rebate scheme is not to apply is a complete negation of that undertaking.
No rebates mean that only about 60 families can afford to be decanted from the Stonebridge and other areas. In fact, it means that before we see the kind of redevelopment that we want in Stone-bridge about 20 years will have passed. These people are the salt of the earth. Stonebridge residents, both in wartime and in peacetime, are second to none in the contribution they have made to this country and its economy.
605 The Tenants' Association went to the town hall last Thursday, and as a result they learned three things. First, the council has no idea how many can afford to go on to the Chalkhill estate in the event of no rent rebate system. Second, it is estimated that it will be at least another 10 years before families can be rehoused in the next phase of the Stone-bridge redevelopment scheme. Third, there was the implied threat that the new flats in Stonebridge Stage 3 are likely to be treated in the same way as they are proposing to treat rents for the Chalkhill estate.
Another major problem in my area is Curzon Crescent, a large estate built many years ago, which is overdue for improvement and which has had all the social problems in the world. In the first phase of redevelopment about 100 families will need to be rehoused, but they cannot afford exhorbitant rents, and the whole scheme is jeopardised because of this policy at Chalkhill.
A constituent of mine, Mr. Tricker, of 22 Hillside. Stonebridge, wrote to the housing department in May. In his letter he said: I cannot possibly accept the tenancy. A rent of £9 8s. 10d. a week out of my weekly wage is absurd when I am a lower-paid worker… A welfare officer called last week and said my present accommodation is deplorable. Now that I am the last remaining tenant in the condemned property, I and my family are subjected to additional hazards, such as drain stench and various insects. This can be confirmed by the doctor who was called in last Friday to my baby who was covered in bites… I suspect that "insects" is probably a euphemism for bugs and fleas.
The council has panicked on its financial policy. The district auditor reported in January that large sums of money were justifiably spent. He gave the figures of £217,000 due to acquisition and improvements which afterwards were to be let at good rents; £210,000 loan charges for capital outlay not yet producing revenue; £60,370 salaries of staff engaged in capital works; and £67,450 pre-letting expenses. But what the council is seeking to do is to throw in the kitchen sink to maximise the amount of costs chargeable to the housing revenue account to avoid decanting from my area to Wembley.
This is ignoring the whole question of urban renewal. When there are 16 houses 606 in a row, the street is not paid for by the council tenants. Lighting is not paid for by the council tenants, but if there is a storey block, lighting and amenities have to be paid for by the council tenants. Council tenants build up the assets in the community. They pay their rents all their lives for properties which they will never own, but which remain a splendid asset for the rest of the ratepayers.
In his report, the district auditor found that rents were not low in my borough in comparison with other London boroughs. He can say that again. They are quite high. If one compares the housing accounts of the London Borough of Brent with those of other London boroughs, one finds that we are all in the same boat. Nevertheless, if there is a heavy housing problem, one is able to manage the housing revenue account in such a way as to provide houses for the people. It is difficult in the short-term, but in the long-term it yields dividends.
In his budget speech, Councillor Swannells, the leader of the Labour group on the council, said: The sum of £987,395"— nearly £1 million— is shown as Urban Renewal…Some part of the expenditure which has to be charged in the first instance to the Housing Revenue Account is eventually used for open space, health centres, or even educational purposes. Why should council tenants be the only ratepayers to meet the expenses of these amenities?
The leader of the council, Alderman Lee, recently made a public statement in which he said: The Council would have been prepared and indeed still is prepared to apply a rent rebate scheme to these properties had the Minister of Housing and Local Government been prepared to co-operate in helping the Council to offset some of this rate burden by allowing the property to be operated by a housing association acceptable to both the Minister and the Council, and which would have had agreed nomination rights. What nonsense that is. If rent rebates are applied to a housing association, the cost to the ratepayers will be just as much as if the council controlled it themselves, and, in addition, there will be the housing association's expenses.
In the same Press release a figure of £300,000 additional cost for Chalkhill was given. This gives the case away entirely as to the additional expenses for 607 the administration of the Chalkhill Estate. This £300,000 indicates that the council itself knows that that 95 per cent. of the occupants would have to have a rent rebate scheme. These are the people for whom this estate was built. This shows that the only way in which we can successfully decant from the areas which need redevelopment is to apply a rate subsidy.
I served in this House on the Housing Act of 1961 and the Housing Act of 1964. I am one of the strongest advocates of housing associations and housing cooperatives. I pressed for the extension of £100 million to be given by the Government for housing associations and I succeeded in pressing the case for housing co-operatives. But housing associations are complementary to and in addition to, and can never replace, the municipal housing which is needed for the people who are in urgent need of accommodation because of social conditions.
Already, the Government have done a marvellous job in my area, because this estate was given a 40 per cent. subsidy of the all-in cost of a dwelling exclusive of expensive site subsidy—and Chalkhill land costs as much as £80,000 an acre, which means that expenses are very high. Can my hon. Friend say what the Government will do about their subsidies if it finally transpires that this estate, instead of being used for the purpose for which it was built, becomes luxury flats which make no contribution to solving Willesden's housing problem?
I charge the council with being irresponsible to the ratepayers, because its policy means a tremendous loss of rates. If the Chalkhill flats have to be let on the normal economic system under a private enterprise effort it will mean that many flats will be empty for month after month, and no rents will be coming in. In my area of Stonebridge we have streets where already two-thirds of the property is empty and ready to be pulled down. We dare not put people in there because it would cost too much for rehabilitation, but the remaining people cannot be moved unless they can go to Chalkhill, and so we have thousands of pounds of Brent ratepayers' money tied up and not producing revenue, because we are not proceeding at the right speed in decanting from this area to Chalkhill Estate, which was built for that purpose.
608 I remind my hon. Friend that in complimenting my borough council on its strides since 1964 he said, of the previous Labour council: It completely it the whole rate of its programme; t put a new urgency into it…were there to be a slackening of the pace, it would be a very great tragedy indeed, a tragedy not only for the people of Brent but for the whole of west London."—[OFFIcIAL REPORT, 25th March. 1969 Vol. 780. c. 1439] I ask the Government to strain every nerve to prevent the tragedy which will inevitably flow from hiving off Chalkhill homes, and if I am unsuccessful in the effort I am putting forward tonight, and in the pressures which I am hoping that my hon. Friend will bring to bear on the Borough of Brent, I ask the people of Brent to serve a notice to quit on the present Tory administration at Brent Town Hall.

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl)
It is just over three months since we had a debate, on the Consolidated Fund Bill, about Brent's housing problems. It makes me sad to remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) began then by referring to the work he had done in collaboration with the then hon. Member for Paddington, North. What a great part they together played in forming the housing strategy for west London. It is a tragedy that Ben Parkin has gone from the service of this House and of his constituency since that debate.
My right hon. Friend has had an application from the Brent Council for a rent increase. He has not considered it yet and, therefore, anything I say tonight is entirely without reference to, or consideration of, that application. My right hon. Friend will make up his mind about that on the basis of the information he has.
There is little of what my hon. Friend said tonight with which I would quarrel in any way. He quoted what I said before about the Brent housing programme. I would certainly repeat that. The new Brent Borough did a tremendous job in getting such a housing programme going so quickly and completely changing the face of Brent's housing problem. It would be a real tragedy if that 609 programme was allowed to slacken and I will make it clear that I would regard that as one of the most dreadful things that could happen for Brent.
Once one allows a programme to sag, it is very difficult to get it going again. It is extremely important to keep a programme going and not only to have available plans for redevelopment but also to have decanting sites available, as my hon. Friend mentioned. That is one of the most important considerations as to why the programme should be continued.
Any programme of this size and speed in West London is bound to be done at a price and, undoubtedly, Brent has paid a good deal. I will not waste the time of the House by quoting figures but it is fair to say that Brent's costs have been high—but then, virtually all London housing costs today are high. Brent, particularly, has had to pay in terms of the housing revenue account and there has been a great deal to pay by way of rate contribution. That is one of the factors to be taken into account.
My hon. Friend referred specifically to Chalkhill. He had a Parliamentary Question to the Attorney-General about the undertaking. That is a matter of legal interpretation which is beyond my capacity or responsibility. The moral obligation remains, whatever the legal obligation. There is no doubt that the intention was that this site should be used for decanting and that it was an important part of the council's old housing strategy.
Therefore, whatever happens to it, unless other sites are immediately available, it will be a tremendous loss if this site is not used. That is one reason why my right hon. Friend did not think it right to agree to the alienation of it so that it would not be available.
My hon. Friend said that the rent rebate scheme did not apply to Chalk-hill. I understand that this is the proposal. Something else which I greatly regret is that it will not be brought within the rent pooling scheme, which is as important as the rent rebate scheme, which reduces the average rents, and, thereby, the amount of rebate, and spreads the load much more economically.
One thing which my hon. Friend quoted is very misleading. He said that 610 the council has said that it was my right hon. Friend's decision on Chalkhill which prevented the extension of the rent rebate scheme to these properties, as the council would have done had they been taken over by a housing association. This just does not hold water, because the council never applied for the Minister's consent to the disposal of the bulk of estate, the 1,400 dwellings. The investigation by its own officers convinced the council that this was not practicable, and the council conveyed this to my right hon. Friend in a letter on 8th April. It was only Stage 2–300 dwellings, which are particularly suitable for families with young children, which they wished to dispose of.
My right hon. Friend's decision on this smaller area did not increase the cost to the council on rent rebate, on the rest of the scheme or for that matter on the 300 houses themselves. The council is in just as good a position to give rebate to its own tenants as it would have been to housing association tenants. There are two possible advantages to keeping the houses within the housing revenue account. If the association charged higher basic rents than the council would have to charge automatically, the rent rebate amount would go up. If the scheme were within the housing revenue account and within pooling, the charge would be less. The assistance of the association by providing rent rebate schemes would mean that this would be a direct charge on rate contribution, because it would not be in a housing account—

§ Mr. Pavitt
And it would cost the ratepayers more.

§ Mr. MacColl
It certainly would not cost them less, and there would be a risk that it would cost them more, because later, if it were possible to even them out more and reduce the housing revenue costs, that would reduce the amount of the charge coming within the rates. On that point, I find it difficult to follow the council's argument.
There is one point to balance that. My information is that the intention at Chalkhill is not to charge the full cost rent, but to charge against rents the Exchequer housing subsidy. That is important from the point of view of my hon. 611 Friend's question, what would happen if this ceased to be effectively part of the council's housing provision, what would be the effect on the subsidy? The important question is whether or not the subsidy is being earmarked for Chalk-hill. My information is that it is intended to set off the subsidy to reduce the rents. The problem is one of reconciling a number of competing problems. I have mentioned particularly the one about keeping up the amount of housing construction which is going on and maintaining the council's programme, to which I attach tremendous importance.
Another is keeping down rent increases, which we all want. Yet another is preserving the rebate scheme and applying it to Chalkhill. I think that the answer to my hon. Friend's question is that if Chalkhill has never been within the rebate scheme my right hon. Friend could not compel it to be brought within the scheme. He could make it a condition of any increases of rent that the existing rebate scheme was maintained, but not extended to new house building.
612 These are great and important problems and I am only sorry that the council has not been able to do more to help in this matter. I hope very much that it will think more about the implications of what it is doing. It seems that, at any rate, as far as the inquiry goes, the council is certainly under a moral obligation to see that everybody who is being displaced have available to them alternative accommodation. That means at a reasonable rent in the light of its own resources and incomes. I hope, therefore, that the council will feel that it has a moral obligation to do that.
In the cause of prudent housing management it would be far better to bring the scheme at Chalkhill within the rebate scheme and to pool the rents. But these are not matters upon which at this stage I wish to say more, because they are under consideration on the application for increases which my right hon. Friend has not yet directed his attention to.