HC Deb 21 July 1971 vol 821 cc1595-612

10.5 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon)

I beg to move, That the Housing Corporation Advances (Increase of Limit) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved. The purpose of this draft Order is to enable the Secretary of State for the Environment, together with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales, to lend £25 million to the Housing Corporation for the Corporation itself to lend to housing societies. The Housing Act, 1964, authorised the lending to the Corporation of £50 million as a start. It also provided for further amounts to be authorised by an Order or a series of Orders, up to another £50 million. An Order of this kind was made by the previous Government in 1969 covering another £25 million. The draft Order now under consideration would enable the last £25 million authorised by the 1964 Act to be lent to the Corporation. In other words, the £25 million in this draft Order would use up all the total of £100 million authorised by the 1964 Act.

The House is probably aware that the Housing Corporation was set up under the Housing Act, 1964, to sponsor, advise and lend money to cost-rent and co-ownership societies. A housing society is a housing association, but a housing association of a special type. A cost-rent or co-ownership society differs from the older, traditional type of association. The older associations were mainly charitable or philanthropic, providing for people who wanted rented accommodation but could not pay the full rent. The new type of cost-rent or co-ownership housing societies were introduced to provide housing of good quality, usually new accommodation, for people of modest means who could afford to pay for their requirements, but from the nature of their occupation, or for some other reason, did not wish to purchase a house for themselves.

Cost-rent and co-ownership societies were introduced with the Housing Act, 1961, the so-called pilot scheme, with a fund of £25 million lent direct by Departments to the societies. As the money was soon allocated to societies, it was plain that there was a demand for rented accommodation by people who did not want subsidised accommodation, but were not desirous of home-ownership, ranging from young people who had not yet settled down to elderly people who were beginning to find the burden of keeping up a home too much for them. So the Housing Corporation was set up by the 1964 Act to carry out as a full-time job the task of encouraging, advising and financing these societies.

As, however, the success of the pilot scheme had demonstrated the demand for this sort of accommodation, it was expected that building societies or other such financial institutions would lend part of the money required. The idea was that in the ordinary way a building society would lend two-thirds of the cost of a project, with the rest of the money coming from the Corporation on second mortgage.

In point of time, the Corporation began to lend money to a society first, but the building society is in law the first mortgagee. This dual mortgage system has, in fact, been carried on since 1964. The only modification has been that in early 1970, when building society loans were not proving easy to obtain, the Corporation was allowed to approve a project in which only half the cost was to be financed by a building society. Some building societies have found this concession helpful.

So far the Corporation has approved projects comprising some 31,000 new dwellings. It has not lent for the purpose of conversion, because it considers that, while it is its job to reckon whether there is likely to be a demand for new accommodation of certain kinds, it could not on its own say whether a particular house in a particular road ought to be converted, as the answer to this question depends on the local authority's plans for area improvement. Lending for conversion has always been thought, therefore, to be more appropriate for local authorities.

The 31,000 dwellings in projects approved are, therefore, all new dwellings, some 20,000 of which have now been completed. The total sum of money involved—that is, taking together lending by building societies and lending by the Corporation—is £148 million.

The Corporation is lending public money, and it is its duty to secure, as far as it reasonably can, that it does not lend on schemes that will not succeed or where the rent that can be obtained will not be enough to keep the property in repair and repay the loans of the building society and the Corporation. As second mortgagee, it is the Corporation which will be certain to lose if a scheme proves a failure. It has to consider whether there are likely to be people wanting to occupy the kind of accommodation proposed by the housing society at the sort of rents required.

I can go into details on the figures and the lending that has taken place up to now, but I will not weary the House with them unless I am asked any questions.

In considering this Order, which deals with the last £25 million available under the Act of 1964, it is perhaps relevant to touch very briefly on the future of the Corporation, for if the Corporation were to cease lending when the £100 million were exhausted, then it might be asked whether it was really worth while letting it have any more than the £75 million which it is entitled to lend in any case. The idea of a central agency lending to all sorts of associations was put forward in evidence to the Cohen Committee, and the Government published the evidence as a working paper of the Central Housing Advisory Committee. We accept the force of this idea.

The House will have seen from the White Paper "Fair Deal for Housing", published recently, that there is a section on the voluntary housing movement, and in paragraph 78 it states that all associations providing for new building for letting should be able to approach the Housing Corporation for loans, not only the cost-rents and co-ownership societies. The tiresome distinction between association and society has been done away with.

We intend that the Corporation shall have a bigger rôle in future, but that will not exclude associations which wish to work closely with a local authority and are ready to give the authority the right to nominate at least half the tenants of the dwellings to be built from borrowing from the authority. That is a right but it is not necessarily one that will be exercised if the local authority does not wish to do so.

The Housing Corporation will be meeting a real need, a demand for rented accommodation by people who do not want council housing. This need the Corporation has met both by its own lending and by its efforts in getting building society finance. I hope that the House will authorise its drawing on the remaining £25 million available under the Housing Act, 1964. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend when he introduces legislation to deal with housing subsidies in the autumn, or at some early date, to deal also with the voluntary housing movement. The White Paper deals with the future of the Housing Corporation.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Freeson (Willesden, East)

We shall support the Order, and we welcome the opportunity to put a number of questions and make some observations on the position regarding the Housing Corporation—an opportunity which does not often occur. From what the Minister has said, this will come before us in a bigger way towards the end of the year. I welcome this, not just as a leading Opposition spokesman on housing but as someone who has been personally very much involved and interested in the housing movement and, in particular, in the co-operative housing movement long before the original 1961 and 1964 Acts which gave rise to the Housing Corporation.

Perhaps the Minister could tell us broadly how much has been spent of the £75 million total permitted borrowing. I would like some indication, and I gather from what the Minister said that this might be possible. We would like an up-to-date picture of the position on the programme of building by the Housing Corporation. I have some figures here to which I will refer to probe this a little further.

I take it that, with the consideration of the future rôle of the Housing Corporation acting as a backer to all forms of housing association house projects it approves, there will be a raising of the legislative limits by further legislative process towards the end of the year. Or will some other form of financing be considered under the proposed legislation?

The Minister referred to the publication "Housing Associations", one of the most interesting documents produced on this subject, despite its earlier difficulties, which both he and I know. I think he inherited a recommendation which I placed on the desk of the previous Minister concerning the Cohen Committee.

Mr. Channon indicated dissent.

Mr. Freeson

No doubt the officials repeated the recommendation which I made in another memorandum. "Housing Associations" is probably the most interesting of its kind produced for many years, and, apart from the particularly important issue of centralisation of financial sponsorship of all kinds of housing associations which the Minister has presaged, there is a whole series of other recommendations by individual bodies which gave evidence which is summarised and discussed, pro and contra, in the document.

I should like to know to what extent there is a distillation of these recommendations going on in the Department following any further discussion, study or consultation with relevant bodies in the housing association movement, in housing generally and in local government generally, which goes beyond this particular point, and whether we may expect administrative changes to be announced—because some are simply a matter of administrative policy—and whether we can expect legislation, either separately or in connection with the proposed housing finance Bill, to implement some of these recommendations. I do not wish to weary the House with the recommendations. I support many of them ; I find some of them questionable. Perhaps there will be an opportunity for a discussion of this document separately or in association with legislation later this year.

I have some figures showing the past record of the Housing Corporation's activities. The number of dwellings approved by the Corporation increased sharply during 1965, 1966 and 1967, following the 1964 Act, from over 3,300 to 10,500 in 1967. These were reflected later in a rising rate of completions, which until recently had still been continuing. However, the figures of starts following 1967 went down to just over 5,000, and then in 1969 to slightly over 1,500 dwellings. Presumably these figures will be reflected in the decline in completions as from this year in the broad assumption that there is an 18-months' to two-year period between approval and completion.

As I understood it when I was in the Ministry, and certainly until recently, notwithstanding certain observations made in this Report, the downturn in Housing Corporation business was chiefly due to a combination of high interest rates and a shortage of building society funds, plus, as I was advised, the somewhat discouraging influence of the Treasury limitation, or Government limitation, on expenditure by the Corporation as part of the general control operated by the Government. We had a position which, I understood, certainly existed at least up to the changeover to the 50–50 basis between building society finance and Corporation finance. The building societies declined many schemes which appeared viable to the Corporation, and the Corporation had to suspend action on a considerable number of schemes because of this difficulty. I understand that the position of the funds from the building societies generally has eased today. One would like to know, if possible this evening, whether there has been a marked increase in the provision of support by building societies during the last six months for Housing Corporation schemes.

One would also be interested to know, on the question of building initiative which might be taken by the Corporation, in addition to the proposal for a central financing agency, to which the Minister referred when he referred to this Report, whether there is any possibility, in order to contribute towards a rise in housing programmes, of the Corporation being allowed to approve schemes without having to insist on building society support from the outset. The Minister will be aware that there is a procedure whereby the Corporation still has to require the building society to approve before it will give its own approval. That, of course, has a slowing down effect on schemes by individual societies going to the Corporation. Is is possible to pursue the idea which is discussed in this Report—not for the first time : it was certainly discussed when I was in the Ministry, and before the Report—of a guarantee supported by the Government to building societies for the financing of projects, the de jure guarantee, as I think it is described in the Report, to back up the de facto guarantee which often occurs but without which building societies will not give the kind of support which the Housing Corporation has been wanting?

I have referred to the need for extending the limit on borrowing powers and for it to be bigger in the future, whether following past means or some other means of financing in the new Bill to be before us in the autumn, but there is one last point I would like to put. When I was in the Ministry I came to the conclusion, and I still hold to it, looking at the housing situation in our cities and urban renewal, and considering the rôle of the housing association movement, and that of the Corporation as an institution, that there was a rôle which could be given to the Corporation, if it had Government backing, to act directly in housing on its own initiative, rather than just waiting for or encouraging individual societies to come to it.

The Minister will know that within the constitution of the Corporation such powers do exist. It can buy land directly ; it can, I believe, build directly, within the legal limits of its constitution. In practice, so far as I am aware, it has never done so, chiefly because it has wished to go along with the policy of the Government, of whatever party. I should like to know whether this is being given serious consideration. I shall not elaborate on it this evening, but I hold strongly to the view that there is a case for bringing in another institution to back up the efforts of local government throughout the country, another institution in direct housing action, particularly in city centres, in future—not, I stress, in competition with but to supplement the efforts of local government and to co-operate with it. I should be interested to know whether serious consideration is being given to this by the Government and, if not, whether an undertaking can be given that at least it will be seriously examined for the future.

Mr. Channon

By leave of the House, I will reply to some of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson). He asked how much had been spent so far by the Corporation. The Corporation has borrowed only £56 million up to now. The House may ask why the Corporation needs to be authorised to borrow more than the £75 million. The answer is that the Corporation commits itself to a scheme by approving it some time before it has to lend the money involved. For a total lending commitment of £148 million, the Corporation's share is therefore about £67 million. Unless the amount upon which it can draw is now increased, it will not be long before the Corporation will cease to approve projects because it will not be able to commit itself to lending without being sure it will eventually have the money to do so. That is why we have brought forward the Order. We shall be rising for the recess in the not too distant future and it seemed prudent to bring the Order forward at this stage.

If I do not give the hon. Gentleman all the figures he wants, I will answer in more detail if he will put down a Question. The figures I have with me are for years ending 31st March. I am not sure that they entirely tie up with the hon. Gentleman's figures. They are : on 31st March, 1967, dwellings approved 8,427, dwellings completed 600 ; in 1968, 8,099 approved, 1,900 completed ; 1969, 3,317 approved, 4,169 completed; 1970, 1,174 approved, 6,346 completed ; 1971, 3,668 approved, 6,006 completed.

Dr, J. Dickson Mabon (Greenock)

Are these United Kingdom figures?

Mr, Channon

These are all United Kingdom figures. For the most recent quarter, the quarter ending 30th June, dwellings approved were 1,200 and dwellings completed 1,016.

It is fair to say that the number of completions will inevitably fall off over the next two years because of the recession in the volume of approvals arising from the financially difficult situation of 1969, but the level of approvals is rising. I will not weary the House by giving the details, but there has been an increase in the level of approvals every quarter since the middle quarter of last year, with the exception of the quarters ending 31st March and 30th June this year, when the levels are approximately the same. The level will go on rising, and I think will be reflected in completions in about two years' time.

There is a mild discrepancy in the figures which the hon. Gentleman will see if he checks them in great detail——

Mr. Freeson

I accept that my figures are probably based on calendar years as compared with financial years.

Mr. Channon

I shall be delighted to answer any Question the hon. Gentleman puts down later.

In the autumn, when we introduce legislation on "Fair Deal for Housing", we shall include provisions dealing with the Housing Corporation and providing further funds for it in its new rôle. Provision will be made in that Bill to deal with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman about the future.

On the general question of the Cohen evidence, I did not see the recommendation which the hon. Gentleman made to his right hon. Friend about what should happen, but I hope that he has not been altogether displeased by what has come out of this. In paragraph 80 of the Housing White Paper we say that the Government are also considering other aspects of the voluntary housing movement in the light of the report presented to the Central Housing Advisory Committee.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the matters raised in this document are under the closest scrutiny in the Department. I hope that in due course some steps can be taken about them. Some, for example the control of equity, are extremely important. If a decision is taken to deal with these matters, there will have to be the fullest consultations with representatives of the voluntary housing movement and the local authority associations in the usual way.

There is some evidence that there is more support among the building societies. A few of the large building societies have played their part, and I hope that under the new system they will give further help. There is some evidence that they are prepared to play a greater part, and we shall have to discuss this with the building societies in future.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are considering the matter of guarantee. I know his views about this matter, and we certainly regard it as important.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the important question of urban renewal, and I assure him that we shall study carefully what he has said. This again is an important subject and needs further study by the Government before we announce any changes or plans. I am not in a position to make a statement tonight.

I believe I have answered most of the hon. Gentleman's questions. If there are any matters with which I have not dealt, perhaps he will contact me and I will do my best to answer him.

The Housing Corporation fulfils a useful rôle which is accepted on both sides of the House. A figure of £100 million was originally allowed under the Housing Act, 1964, and this provision allows the corporation to draw on the final tranche. I am sure that this will be generally welcomed, and I hope the House will allow the Order to go through.

10.32 p.m.

Dr. J, Dickson Mabon (Greenock)

I have no doubt that if the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment is not allowed to reply to what I have to say, the Under-Secretary of State for Development at the Scottish Office will be able to give me the facts and figures I seek.

The Order deals with the United Kingdom and the hon. Gentleman has given figures for the United Kingdom, but we are not entirely happy with the progress of the Housing Corporation in Scotland. It has always been my impression that the Corporation has not dealt adequately with the peculiar situation in Scotland. I readily accept that, although cost-rent schemes have not succeeded in Scotland as was originally intended, co-ownership schemes have succeeded reasonably well.

I am sorry that this matter has come up for discussion at so late an hour since it must be dealt with in the context of the White Papers which were produced last week, and which we from Scotland may have an opportunity to debate next week. It is interesting to compare the two White Papers. Paragraph 33 on page 8 of Command 4727 puts the matter circumspectly in economic terms, whereas there are a dozen or so paragraphs in the English White Paper to say the same thing.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger)

The English are more verbose.

Dr. Mabon

As the hon. Gentleman says, the English are more verbose, but I should like to know how these matters merge in terms of time. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said that the Order will give £75 million and will then go to the end of the statutory limit. This means that there will have to be an Act of Parliament to recast the entire context of the Housing Corporation's position. If we pass this Order we shall be promised two Acts of Parliament, one for England and Wales in connection with Command Paper 4728, and one for Scotland in connection with Command Paper 4727. Although they are based on different appreciations of the situation, the same principles are to be applied. We shall have a Scottish Bill devoted to the Housing Corporation, which I welcome. However. this means that principles will be applied to Scotland which may not be true of the English and Welsh position. I cannot speak of the English and Welsh situation, but I am anxious to look a little more closely at the situation in Scotland.

In the terms of this Order, we are assenting to the Housing Corporation continuing to borrow money which will enable it to carry on financing different schemes, both cost-rent and co-ownership, in the current financial year 1971–72 and in 1972–73.

From what the Under-Secretary has said, when he let slip that the Bill would come in the Autumn, and, I presume, obtain Royal Assent in the next Session, I gather that this new Act of Parliament will, therefore, apply to 1972–73. We are very keen to know the basis on which the Housing Corporation will spend its money and of what kind of figures the Government are thinking. After all, they say in the last sentence of paragraph 33 that … there should be a subsidy related to any deficit arising where the income from fair rents does not cover the initial annual expenditure. We are entitled to know what proportion of the money we are voting tonight will go over to this or whether it will not be involved.

We are also entitled to know the record of the Housing Corporation in dealing with various schemes. If the building societies had been perfect, we would never have had the Housing Corporation. Because they were not perfect and were unwilling to lend—I do not blame them in this kind of housing venture—we invented the Housing Corporation. We invented an organisation that was willing to bear a higher risk than were the building societies.

When the Under-Secretary says that they bent the rules a little, without breaking them, from two-thirds to a half——

Mr. Younger

No, the hon. Gentleman did ; we did not.

Dr. Mabon

To our credit we did this, and I am very glad of it. Perhaps we should have bent them more. The Under-Secretary always lands himself in trouble when he interrupts. Perhaps he should inquire into the incidence of success. If the Housing Corporation has bet on every scheme and won on every scheme, it is a bad Corporation, because we might as well have left it to the building societies. The purpose of inventing the Housing Corporation, like the Highlands and Islands Development Board, is that there has to be a degree of failure. If there is no degree of failure, it means that it has been placing safe bets all along the line, in which case it has not been taking the risks that it should have taken. If the degree of failure were tremendous, it would be a very bad Corporation. But there has to be a degree of failure, and I ask what the incidence of failure by the Corporation has been. How many bad schemes has it backed with the £56 million it has committed so far? What is its degree of judgment here?

I do not seek to chase the Corporation in any way. It has done a reasonably good job, albeit not as good in Scotland as I should have liked. But what has been the degree of backing schemes which were not 100 per cent. successful? We do not know.

If the previous Government had to change the building society position so that they only lent half, it means that the building societies were not able to bring forward enough money to finance it. We know the reasons why—at least, I do, as do my hon. Friends and many others. But is it not the case that we are inhibiting the development of housing societies by not looking at this matter a little more? The Minister may say that we might bend the rules a bit more, in which case the Government should tell us. Perhaps we should lay down in Statute that it is not one-third but two-thirds. The Government should come clean about it. That is why I regret that we are discussing this at so late an hour. The Housing Corporation is one of the most significant things that we have achieved in the post-war years. It almost bridges the party political gap on housing.

There is no dispute about the need for the Housing Corporation. We welcomed it in Opposition and we operated it when we were in office. It is a form of owner-occupation which allows people who cannot go for mortgages to buy houses which otherwise they would be denied and instead would have to take rented houses. Sweden builds a third of its houses in this way. That shows how much we are failing to develop this section of housing legislation.

Another matter which I want to raise concerns student co-operative housing. If we want to develop the habit of cooperative housing it has to be understood from an early age for it to become a habit. I can think of no better place than a university or college to develop the habit of understanding co-operative housing. Many of our young people attend universities and colleges, obtain degrees, go out into the world, and move from place to place. They do not stay for 10 or 20 years in the same position. They move from job to job and from house to house. What a boon it would be if they could be members of a co-operative housing institution which enabled them to transfer their holdings in one cooperative society to another as they went from place to place.

We have never faced this matter properly. The past advice by officials—I am sure it must be the same continuing advice, knowing their impartiality—has been that the Statute did not permit us to do as much for student co-operative housing as we might have done.

If we are to vote this money tonight, may it be on condition that the new Acts of Parliament superseding or carrying on this legislation will take cognisance of this point and will try to write in provisions to encourage, in the Canadian, the Norwegian, and the Swedish manner, and the manner of many other countries, the need for developing student co-operative housing in Great Britain?

We in Scotland—I know that it is also true of the University of London, but I do not know about the other universities in England—are keen to develop student co-operative housing. If the Housing Corporation's advice has altered somewhat in the Department and it has managed to promote something on these lines, I should like to be told tonight. If it is the same old rigid, inflexible advice which we are getting, then some new thought should be encouraged in the Bills to be presented to us which will take up the money voted tonight.

I do not apologise for raising these matters, even at this late stage. I am sorry that we are not having a proper debate on the subject, but that is the way that Parliament is run. It is to be regretted. I can only hope that the Minister will respond adequately.

10.43 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger)

I can respond to the further questions asked by the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) and give him some information about the Scottish position. I hope that the House will bear with me.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the pace of spending by the Housing Corporation. The pace of spending is increasing, but we have no reason to think that it will exhaust what it can use before legislation extending its powers and giving it more money can be put through Parliament.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether and, if so, to what extent the Housing Corporation has backed failures. I see the point he is getting at in that question. There have been some difficulties in a few of the Housing Corporation's schemes, but my information is that there has been no case which could properly be described as a complete failure. The difficulties, such as they have been in one or two cases, have been such as would normally be expected in any housing enterprise in a somewhat speculative sphere.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about student housing. This has been a matter about which there have been almost continuous discussions between the housing association movement and the various Departments for a long time. There are considerable difficulties in meeting the views and needs of students faced with taking part in a housing association. Our advice, as the hon. Gentleman more or less forecast, is that whereas this is a matter which is worth pursuing and discussing with student organisations to see whether there is a need, it appears that the difficulties outweigh the possibilities of doing something constructive.

Mr. Freeson

I realise that what I put to the hon. Gentleman will be as much, if not more, a matter for his hon. Friend, but perhaps the matter could, nevertheless, be pursued.

The hon. Gentleman says that there have been long discussions on this subject, and that the matter will be pursued to establish whether there is a need, and if there is one, how it might be met. I find this disturbing. I accept that there have been lengthy discussions over a long period. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that, although no definite action had been planned, some fairly definitive decisions had been arrived at shortly before I left office, and I presume that my hon. Friend had the same experience in relation to the Scottish situation.

There was a virtual instruction in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, as it was, to act in co-operation with other Departments to establish lines of action which could be recommended and acted upon, not only for students, but for many other single persons in our big cities, such as apprentices, who found themselves in a similar situation. I am disappointed to hear that there has been no movement forward to definitive action in the last year, judging by what the hon. Gentleman has been saying.

Mr. Younger

That is a most interesting account of something which may have happened before we took office. All I can say is that the whole business is under detailed discussion between ourselves and student organisations and with the Department of Education and Science. I assure the hon. Gentleman that these discussions will be pursued in a constructive frame of mind during the coming months.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

And be put in the Bill.

Mr. Younger

I cannot give any undertaking about that, but we shall pursue the matter.

The total estimated cost of all approved schemes in Scotland amounts to £6.8 million at the latest convenient date, and the Housing Corporation's estimated commitment for approved schemes amounts to £3 million in Scotland. The amount advanced, which, as always, is very much less, is £2.4 million. A total of 1,255 houses are involved in the approved schemes. The Scottish position at the moment can be summed up by saying that 532 houses in 14 schemes have so far been completed under the auspices of the Housing Corporation in Scotland, and another 12 schemes comprising 492 houses are under construction. In addition, a further nine schemes comprising 231 houses have been given full approval, and the bulk of these, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are in central Scotland.

Dr. Mabon rose——

Mr. Younger

No.

The only other thing that I should like to say in answer to the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that all of us would agree, not least the Housing Corporation, that the progress of the Housing Corporation in Scotland has been very much less rapid than it has been in England and Wales. I see that as no reflection on the Corporation itself, which is doing a most energetic and worth-while job in Scotland, as it is in England and Wales. I see it rather as a reflection of the different housing conditions in Scotland, and the different attitudes to and systems for our housing in Scotland. I think that the Corporation in Scotland has done a good job in these difficult conditions in getting the schemes off the ground. In the years ahead I hope to see a great improvement in the progress of housing associations in Scotland, and I shall do all I can to help this along.

Dr. Mabon

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman waited until he had completed his speech before giving way. I want to make clear that we are not linking the work of the officers of the Corporation with the work of the Corporation itself. The officers have never been criticised by my hon. Friends or by myself. They work extremely hard. We are talking not about the officers but about the Corporation. The hon. Gentleman knows what I mean when I say that the Corporation has not done as well in Scotland, proportionately in terms of population, as it should have done, and that is borne out by the figures which the hon. Gentleman has given. That being so, as the Minister responsible, the hon. Gentleman should say that the Corporation deserves to be pushed forward to work harder than it has done. If the hon. Gentleman says that, I shall be content.

Mr. Younger

I quite see what the hon. Member is gettng at. I entirely agree that that is the situation—but I do not agree about the reason for it. I believe that the Housing Corporation and its officers have done their level best to do a good job for Scotland, and I pay tribute to them with great pleasure. But the fact that proportionately they have not achieved as much in Scotland as in the United Kingdom is a reflection on the highly unsatisfactory housing situation that we have had in Scotland for many years, and it is precisely to put right that unsatisfactory situation that we are bringing forward the White Paper and next winter, I hope, a Bill which will modernise the very unsatisfactory and antiquated housing situation in Scotland.

The Housing Corporation has done a good job in the circumstances, and I wish it well, and hope that under the new legislation which will improve housing matters generally, it will be able to do a better job in future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Housing Corporation Advances (Increase of Limit) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.