HC Deb 16 June 1971 vol 819 cc599-610

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

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt (Willesden, West)

The Adjournment debate provides an opportunity to raise matters which are of deep concern to constituents and which very often involve criticism of the Government. The matter I wish to raise this evening is one of profound and deep concern. However, I wish to begin by asking the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to convey to his Department and his officials the gratitude of a number of the people from my area on the way in which over the last three years they have shown far more understanding of housing problems in Willesden than perhaps has the town hall. I have been most grateful for the help which I have received in this matter. When departmental officials deal with real problems and facts, one can often get from them a greater appreciation of practical solutions than one could hope to get when dealing with the matter in purely political terms.

I wish tonight to raise a problem that affects some 614 families in Willesden, West, who live in an area that was built up in the 1930s which is known as Curzon Crescent, involving several blocks of flats and some houses.

I will try to put the problem into context. My borough probably has the most appalling housing problem in the whole of London. In March 1969, I made a plea in this House in a similar kind of debate dealing with the policy of the Conservative Administration in the town hall at that time. I shall give the House a number of facts and figures. At that time the number of people on the waiting list for accommodation was 6,943. Now, two years later, despite the pressure that was then applied, because the policy at the town hall did not change, the waiting list in my area is now 9,495, over 2,000 more than it was at that time. We operate a points scheme of allocation. In that waiting list there are 2,250 with points for medical disability; 350 are broken families, with children in one place and parents in another; 1,393 are illegally overcrowded. On 27th January, 1970, in answer to a Question from me, the Minister said that the number of designated slums was 554. In answer to another Question on 25th November, 1969, about housing starts, I was told: There is likely to be a shortfall of 1,954 housing starts on Brent's original 1969 programme which was for 1,978 dwellings … I understand that it will be 24 only."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1969; Vol. 792, c. 56.] It is that policy which has led to the present devastating situation.

An entirely new phenomenon, because of its size, is the heartbreak of homeless-ness. A few years ago, the country was disturbed by the television play "Cathy Come Home". There are 149 Cathys who cannot come home in my area—112 homeless families have been accommodated by the Department of Social Services and 37 by voluntary associations. Now, for the first time, because the problem is becoming unmanageable, 10 families have been boarded out in a guest house at the ratepayers' expense because there is no room at the inn.

There is nothing wrong with these families. They are normal families who have run into a bad patch and have no roof over their heads. The problem is aggravated because more than 100 houses have been cleared out to make way for a bypass, and in less than three weeks the remaining 17 homeless families who will be then displaced will have to be found homes. Tragedy after tragedy: broken home after broken home. My Friday night surgeries are one mass of marital problems and others arising from the fact that many families are sharing too little accommodation.

On the front page of my local paper, The Willesden Chronicle, last week was an attractive picture of two young child ren who were left at the council's office at Brent House on Monday: … council officials have been unable to find their mother … The younger child is aged about six months and was dressed in pink nylon rompers with a yellow woollen coat. The other child, who is aged 18 months to two years, was wearing red and white check rompers, a matching dress and yellow anarak. Thanks to Mr. Eamonn Andrews and his television programme, we were able to trace the mother, but the family is still in need of a home. I pay tribute to Mr. H. Whalley, the Director of Social Services, who must be working day and night on the problem of the homeless.

It is the whole problem of housing to which I direct the Minister's attention, and particularly the rehabilitation of the council estate of Curzon Crescent. Curzon Crescent was a housing development of the 1930s, but for a variety of reasons it has sunk to the bottom of the heap of housing in my area. It has a predominant number, 47 per cent., of very large families. There are inadequate amenities and the area is unpopular and unloved. At the last survey, 71 per cent. of the residents wanted to get out.

I saw the Minister in 1969, and after negotiations with the local authority the Ministry gave the go-ahead for a solution to this problem which meant refurbishing block by block and bringing the whole thing up to modern standards at a cost of £2.3 million. The crux of the scheme was to bring this run-down area back to being part of the community. We wanted not just modern homes but proper amenities, neighbourhood facilities for children, sports facilities for young people and leisure facilities for the elderly. Most important of all, if we succeed in doing doing this this large area catering for 614 families could become part of the general housing provision of the area and not the end of the road for so many people, a cul de sac that no one wanted to get into in case they could not get out again.

The tragedy is that, having received support from the Ministry, there has been a lag in getting the scheme implemented. We have a situation where, because we cannot decant families elsewhere, the builders cannot move in. We had the Chalkhill Estate to which we could have decanted people from Curzon Crescent, but, with rents at £13 a week, it was impossible. The whole of the housing programme in my area, including this refurbishing arrangement, has been put back five years. Because we had nowhere for people to go, the slum clearance, redevelopment and general improvement which is so necessary could not proceed.

I should like to quote one of the new councillors, Mrs. Mary Goudie, who has done a marvellous job and is heart and soul behind my constituents in her efforts to transform Curzon Crescent into a place worthy of them. Speaking of the present situation, she said: There is still one family left in Dudley Court. The whole of the top end is like a ghost town, and those who are left are miserable. The children are breaking into the empty flats, and the parents are worried about fires and accidents. This is typical of many areas which we want to redevelop in Willesden. For instance, I was in Melville Road on Sunday and found four houses out of a whole road in which people were still living. This means that we cannot get on with the necessary rebuilding for which sanction has been given. The delay is costly to the ratepayers and it is a bad thing for housing in Willesden.

I do not blame the Minister. I indict the previous council. If it had treated this project with proper backing from the start with contingent support work, Dudley Court would have been started months ago. The present timetable means that Dudley Court will now start in July, 1971, Dover Court in January, 1972, Pendennis Court in July, 1972, and Lul-worth Court in January, 1973. The whole of this timetable should have been brought forward so that we should have been seeing the area transformed into a delightful place 18 months from now.

Despite the many deserving areas to which the Minister has to give consideration, I ask him to give high priority to speeding up what we are trying to do in the Curzon Crescent project, to ensure that there is no delay in the Department in reaching decisions on matters put to him by the new Borough Council, which is anxious to solve the problem as quickly as possible, and to confirm that loan sanction on the present projection of costs is assured and that it will be eligible for a grant of 50 per cent.

If we could get 100 new houses taken over by the council capable of housing large families with up to six children, it would be possible to decant people from the area and enable us to get on with the programme so much quicker and get rid of the boarded up derelict places which are a danger to the community.

The borough now has to make up for lost time. The previous council put the programme back at least five years. We need to weld into a neighbourhood entity a community which has been sharply divided into the "haves" of Wembley and the "have nots" of Willesden by the last council.

The symbol of success in our endeavours would be for people to be able to walk into Curzon Crescent with pride and say that it was a pleasure to live there. That has not been possible for a long time. That symbol of success is what I am seeking tonight. It is a matter to which the borough council is pledged. I wish it well in its endeavours.

I am grateful to the Minister for the understanding which he has shown in the past. I hope that he will translate his sympathy into some practical help.

11.25 p.m.

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

The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) is perfectly entitled to raise this matter in the House, and I shall do what I can to answer the points which he has made. He was kind enough, first, to pay a tribute to the officials in the Department, which I shall ensure is passed on and which, I am sure will be much appreciated.

What I shall not do—and I do not imagine that the hon. Gentleman will expect me to do so—is enter into the somewhat highly coloured and rather one-sided description, if I may say so, which the hon. Gentleman gave of events which took place in the London Borough of Brent over the past few years. The local elections in Brent are now over, and I do not think that it would be sensible for me to try to enter into local arguments which are entirely a matter for the London Borough of Brent. Neither will the hon. Gentleman expect me to accept all he said in criticism of the last Borough Council of Brent or go into the other troubled and deep waters upon which he embarked.

I come now to that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech in which he dealt with the general housing problem in London and in his own borough. I entirely accept that the Borough of Brent has some of the worst housing problems in London. Whether it be right to say that they are the worst in London I do not know. There are lots of places with really ghastly problems. Both my right hon. Friend and I have time and again urged a vigorous programme of both public authority housing and private housing in London, and of improvements, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are reviewing all the housing subsidies in order to direct assistance to those areas and those people in the greatest need.

I believe that our new measures will be of great benefit to London, and I look forward to having the hon. Gentleman's enthusiastic support for them when they are announced to the House in due course. That will be the test of whether he is prepared to support a policy which will be of extreme benefit to London and his own borough, and I am sure that no hint of political dogma will prevent his giving the Government enthusiastic support when the reform of housing subsidies comes into operation.

My right hon. Friend announced his intention, also, to discuss with all the London boroughs and the Greater London Council the whole problem of London housing. The hon. Gentleman may wish to know, in regard to his own borough, that next week the leader of the council is to come to see me to discuss housing problems in Brent. I shall certainly take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said in his general points about housing problems there, and, no doubt, the leader of the council will wish to add to that and put his view to me.

I am only too anxious to do what I can in a difficult housing situation, regardless of who is in power—Labour, Conservative, Liberal, Communist or whatever it might be—and I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government are determined to help those areas and those people who are in the greatest need. I look forward to constructive discussions with London councils about these problems.

I come now to the specific problem of Curzon Crescent. One of the features of the Housing Act, 1969, which my right hon. Friends very much support, is that it places responsibilities for deciding a whole range of matters, including improvement schemes such as Curzon Crescent, on the local housing authority, with which it rightly belongs. In the case of applications for improvement grants from private owners and occupiers, the authority is given a virtually unrestricted right to decide whether, in a particular case, it is justifiable to spend public money in order to bring a building up to the 12-point standard, with which the hon. Gentleman will be familiar.

In the case of improvements which local authorities wish to carry out to their own property—Curzon Street is in this category—there is not quite the same measure of freedom. The authority has to obtain formal approval to any scheme before it is carried out, and the purpose here—which, I think, has been supported by both sides of the House—is to ensure that proper value for money is obtained for work to be financed entirely out of public funds, some part from central and some part from local government funds.

The factors which my Department takes into account are the standard to which the property should be improved, having regard to its potential life after improvement, and the extent and cost of the work proposed, and of course special attention is paid to repairs and replacement for which a Government contribution is being claimed. Local authorities are encouraged, in a circular issued by the Department, to discuss informally with its officers any projects under consideration, or at a very early stage in their planning, so that agreement is reached on the essential points, before formal approval is sought.

I wish to stress that this is the full extent of the control exercised by the Department. Once a scheme is formally approved, the timing is entirely a matter for the authority, and no special financial authority or loan sanction is needed. So provided that there has been adequate informal consultation at an early stage, no scheme need be held up by the need to obtain the Department's approval, which can be given very quickly.

Greater Exchequer assistance is given to local authorities and housing associations in the Greater London area because of the abundant evidence of past improvements and conversions carried out by these bodies. Although the Act provides normal maxima of £1,000 grant paid for improvement works, and £1,250 paid when acquisition and conversion is involved, these figures are doubled in London when the new dwellings have a life of at least 30 years.

In the case of Curzon Crescent, Brent Council followed the advice given in the circular. In the middle of 1968 the borough architect talked quite informally with officers of the Department, as he is in the habit of doing on many occasions about numerous housing matters. A full discussion ensued about the scheme and the Department's officers visited the estate. They even went back and had a look at it on a Sunday because they were told that the conditions of car parking in particular were very different at the weekend than they were in the middle of a working day.

It is no part of my brief to defend the decisions of the Labour Government, but I must point out that the worrying feature of the scheme at that time was the very heavy expenditure which it was proposed to incur on 536 dwellings which, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, had been completed only just before the Second World War and which were providing much better accommodation than many other people were enjoying both in public and privately owned dwellings in this part of the borough.

The cost was going to come out at something like £4,000 per unit and there was going to be no increase in the number of units. There was going to be a lot of expensively planned car parking and there would have been lifts in all the blocks of flats, although they were only four storeys high. What had to be decided was whether this sort of expenditure was justified, bearing in mind both the situation in this particular estate and, indeed, housing conditions generally in that part of the borough.

The council was, therefore, quickly told of the Department's misgivings and was asked to think again, particularly about its original proposals for 100 per cent. car parking provision, much of which was to be in semi-sunk garages costing a quarter of a million pounds, and about the necessity for all the lifts that were being ordered at a cost of something like £125,000. I understand it was the Department's view that these dwellings could be brought up to a good modern standard for a more modest expenditure. The Department set out in considerable detail the sort of items which it thought were reasonable and which could be supported by grant aid.

At this stage the council interpreted this advice as a formal rejection of the application and a deputation from the council discussed the matter with the then Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). The upshot of this was that there were further informal discussions at officer level and in January, 1970, the council came forward with substantial changes in its proposals. The semi-sunk car parking had been omitted and there was a more moderate provision for car parking and the number of lifts had been drastically reduced. The effect of this was to reduce the unit cost of the scheme from £4,000 to £1,858, and at this stage the Department felt able to give it formal approval.

Despite these considerable economies, the revised scheme produced very much improved dwellings. The kitchens were to be enlarged, with new fitments and windows, the solid fuel grates were to be removed and gas or electric heaters provided in the living rooms, with many other changes which I will not delay the House by detailing. In other words, these rather dilapidated and old-fashioned flats were being made into comfortable, serviceable units. The situation at this stage was, therefore, that the council was free to go ahead with its proposals. All that was needed was for it to obtain tenders and to provide vacant possession for the successful contractor to make a start.

For a number of reasons, perhaps not now worth going into, there was some delay in starting the work. My impression has always been that both the previous administration at Brent and, I believe, the present new administration are anxious to get ahead with this job. Where they have sought help from the Department, every effort has been made to supply it. In particular, when it seemed that the result of the delay would be to increase the cost of the scheme over the contract price, my officers quickly and readily agreed to meet the Council's officers to see what could be done. A meeting was held on 26th May. The cost implications were examined and the council was told that formal approval would be given to a revised application based on a higher unit cost, and consequently eligible for a higher grant. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the way is once more open to Brent to press on with the scheme. Formal approval will be given to a revised application based on the matters I have outlined. It is not for me to defend the previous Administration in their attitude to this scheme. I understand the reasons for the attitude which prevailed at the time. Whether that decision was right or wrong is now past history. I now believe—much more important for the future—that no difficulties still remain.

I join with the hon. Member in expressing the hope that there will be no further delays. I hope that the Council will find ways and means of overcoming rehousing problems which exist in this particular area. As the council will know, Government help is available for this in the shape of loan sanction for the purchase of properties on the open market. This may be one method of providing accommodation for those displaced from Curzon Crescent. It is for the Borough of Brent to decide what it does about this, and how and when it does it. It is not for me to say how Brent should do it. It is a matter for the local authoriy to decide what it considers to be the best way of dealing with the problem now.

I am sure that everyone wishes that the work which has gone into this exercise will result as quickly as possible in the provision of new and better homes for some 500-odd tenants. After all, this is the object of the policy of improving housing which the Government are pursuing energetically and which all political parties support, and about which the hon. Member is keenly enthusiastic.

There is no reason whatsoever why there should now be delay in this matter. I hope that all concerned will do their utmost to press ahead. I think that there are no difficulties. If there are any, I hope that the hon. Member will be in touch with me about them.

In conclusion, my right hon. Friends have asked the London authorities to increase both their new building and improvement programmes, to encourage private enterprise and housing associations to play their part in dealing both with the overall shortage of dwellings in London and the need to improve much of the existing stock.

As I have told the hon. Member, we are to have a conference on London later this year, and I am to see the leader of his borough very shortly. We are determined to do what lies within our power to help tackle the very serious difficulty existing in London and which exists certainly in the hon. Member's borough.

I am very sorry to hear of the increased he mentioned in his opening remarks. This is a very serious matter indeed, and it will be one of the matters that my right hon. Friend will wish to discuss with the boroughs when the conference is held. As the hon. Member will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services set up a working party to consider this matter, and its first report has been published. Consultations are now taking place on the contents of the report.

I assure the hon. Member that the Government are only too anxious to tackle these problems. They are exceedingly difficult and will not be solved lightly by people of any political persuasion. They can only be solved by a real exercise of will by all those involved. The Government are determined to play their part. I hope that the Borough of Brent will play its part. I am sure that the hon. Member will act as gadfly to both parties to ensure that they do.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Twelve o'clock.