HC Deb 24 March 1972 vol 833 cc1951-62

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard (Barons Court)

I am glad to have the opportunity of raising this afternoon the problems posed to my constituents and many others in and around London by the threatened closure of Butterwick House in Hammersmith. This raises questions of particular importance to Hammersmith and also questions of more general import. I am grateful that a Minister from the Department of the Environment rather than from the Department of Health and Social Security is to reply. It is important to accept the urgency of this problem. I can say that it will become increasingly urgent as time goes on, particularly in the next few months.

I should like to say a word by way of introduction. It is heartening that I have received on this issue, perhaps not the most popular of issues—namely, what is to happen to 750 single men living in a Rowton House in Hammersmith—an astonishing number of letters. All have expressed great concern; all have been somewhat critical about the way in which various Departments and local authorities concerned have approached the problem.

Butterwick House is at 221, Hammersmith Road, in my constituency. It is a Rowton House with 750 beds for single men. They live there at a low rent in accommodation which is not elaborate but is clean and simple. It is noteworthy that no less than 38 per cent. of the 750 men have lived in the Borough of Hammersmith for more than five years. A large number of them suffer from some form of mental or physical handicap.

The immediate problem is very simple to state but very difficult to deal with. There is a general redevelopment scheme for the centre of Hammersmith, which I support. It is high time that this part of Hammersmith was redeveloped. Whether one has reservations about the type of redevelopment to take place is another matter, but the principle that it should be redeveloped is unexceptionable. As part of the redevelopment scheme, Butterwick House is to be closed. Two points arise on the proposed redevelopment and the closure of Butterwick House. The first is what is to happen to the men who live there. The second—a more general proposition—is what is the general background of a shrinking pool of housing accommodation for single people, particularly in and around London?

I raised this matter originally with the Department of Health and Social Security as long ago as July, 1971. I received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State dated 19th July, 1971, merely saying that Butterwick House was to be closed. The policy at that time appeared to be to continue to take men for short-term slays but not to accept any more long-term residents. The reply ended by saying: Officials of the London Borough of Hammersmith are fully alive to the problems likely to arise from the closure of this hostel and discussions have already been held with Rowton Houses Ltd. Further discussions are planned in the near future between the local authority officials and officials of my Department. I am at present considering with other statutory and voluntary bodies what can be done to alleviate the problem created by this closure. I should read another sentence since it is a fact which may assist. The Under-secretary said in his letter: Some of the residents at present in Butterwick House may have special problems—physical disabilities, mental illness, alcoholism and so forth which will mean they are in need of a specially supportive environment is may be run or provided through local authority social services departments. Discussions took place between the Ministry and the local authority and various other interested groups in the area. Those discussions continued until the last few weeks. Surveys of residents of Butterwick House were conducted in September, 1971, and January, 1972. On both occasions only 50 per cent. of the forms were filled in and returned, but they revealed that at least 139 of the men, by reason of age or infirmity, would be unable to arrange alternative accommodation.

Christian Action, from which I have received some of my information and statistics, concluded that on those statistics, which it believed to be an inadequate basis for planning, insufficient accommodation for these people would be provided. Christian Action is convinced that many of these single men—perhaps up to 200—will remain homeless after the closure. It is perhaps not realised that the closure is taking place at an eviction rate of 65 per week. Christian Action concluded that perhaps 200 single men might remain homeless after the closure.

Rowton Houses guaranteed last autumn that 250 alternative beds would be provided in the Camden or Whitechapel areas, but that figure has been successively reduced. The last working party which considered this quoted 120, but since then the vacancies in other Rowton Houses have fluctuated between a low of 20 and a high of 90. Therefore, it is impossible to be optimistic that as the closure continues enough places will be provided.

A letter was recently written by the Private Secretary of the Secretary of State for Social Services to Christian Action. I must categorise that letter as somewhat bland. It does not display the sense of urgency which the problem demands. We are told: This Department is well aware of the need for more suitable long-term supportive accommodation…and is in close touch with both local authorities and certain voluntary organisations about the respective parts each can play. Since the Department is well aware of the need, I hope the Minister will tell us what plans the Government have for satisfying the need which by that sentence the Department concedes to exist.

The Department goes on to say that it has been: in close contact with Hammersmith about this situation and their handling of it, and the Secretary of State is satisfied that they appreciate to the full their Social Service responsibilities. Both the Council and this Department are keeping the situation under constant review. Many of the general issues…are being considered by the Working Party with the London Boroughs Association…The Secretary of State does not, therefore, think that any special inquiry into closure of Butter-wick House is necessary. The main fact upon which it seems the Secretary of State came to that conclusion was that the number of men under the age of 65 and of pensionable age who were unlikely to be able to arrange alternative accommodation was 83 under 65 and 56 of pensionable age. Since Hammersmith has made arrangements as a result of which 80 men may be accommodated, the Department in that letter seems to take the view that the problem has basically been solved.

Enough concern has been expressed, first, about the facts of the situation and, secondly, about the proposals which Hammersmith Council and the Department have devised for solving the problem to make at least a prima facie case for an inquiry either within the Department or in the form of a public inquiry.

I have a great deal of sympathy with Hammersmith Borough Council. Rowton House has been in Hammersmith for a long time. It is not purely a Hammersmith problem. It will be quite impossible for a borough of the size of the London Borough of Hammersmith suddenly to rehouse 750 men who require single accommodation. It could not be done. No one who approached the problem objectively and reasonably could expect an in-individual local authority to do that.

It is incumbent upon the Government, faced with the shrinking pool of this type of accommodation available in London, to co-ordinate action with other London boroughs viathe G.L.C. so as to ensure that those residents of Butter-wick House who will be displaced in the next 12 months are found some reasonable accommodation if they cannot obtain alternative accommodation for themselves.

What is the general situation with regard to this type of housing accommodation? Merely to close one Rowton House in one part of London does not solve the problem. All it does is to move the trouble somewhere else. The 750 men living in Butterwick House will have to find somewhere else to live and it will have to be something of the same type of accommodation.

If we consider the removal of Butter wick House as an amenity, which basically is what it is, in terms of the social scene it forms part of a drastic national decline in lodging house accommodation. If we look at the figures for the various major cities in Britain it can be seen that they give a common picture. In London the number of common lodging house beds has gone down from 6,405 in 1962 to 4,708 in 1972. In Manchester the figures are 1,535 in 1960 and 1,325 in 1972; in Birmingham 807 in 1960 and 485 in 1972.

If we consider the number of Rowton House beds available in London, since Rowton Houses have to a large extent fulfilled the need for those who require lodging house accommodation, we can see that the decline is even more dramatic. In 1960 the number of Rowton House beds in London was 4,536, and in 1972—this would be the estimated figure for June, 1972—it went down to 2,180. This is an urgent problem and is also a human one. It is a problem which is being caused by the inevitable redevelopment of parts of our cities.

The people who live in Butterwick House, Hammersmith, have a right to expect either the public authorities in the area or the Government to give them some hope for the future and some indication of where they will be able to live after the redevelopment has taken place.

This is not a new problem. It was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) in an Adjournment debate on 29th June, 1971. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security then said: What are the Government doing to assess the problem and to give greater help? The Supplementary Benefits Commission has asked for an inquiry into the extent and quality of lodging house and hostel accommodation and wants to obtain as much information as possible. We are making plans for a survey, and the leading voluntary organisations in this work will be invited to co-operate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1971; Vol. 820, c. 361–2.] I know that that exchange did not involve the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who is to reply to this debate, but at some stage I would welcome information as to what will happen to that survey. I should like to know what has been examined and what, if anything, has been the result.

This now calls for urgent central action by the Government, even if only in a co-ordinating capacity. It may be that the G.L.C. is the proper authority to solve this problem. But of one thing I am certain, and that is that this is a problem that will get worse, in relation not only to Butterwick House but to the provision of this type of accommodation for single persons in all our major cities. I hope the Minister will bring a greater sense of urgency to the consideration of the problems than the Government have shown to date.

4.23 p.m.

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

The whole House will be indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) for raising this issue, which rightly gives a great deal of concern to anybody who is interested in this problem. What he has shown in the wholly admirable interest he has taken in this matter is that the matter of homelessness is not confined to families with children. He has rightly reminded us that single persons also can fall prey to homelessness and that they deserve sympathy and concern in this House.

The House will agree that homelessness, whether on the part of families or of single persons, is a ghastly problem. Nobody with a shred of compassion in a civilised society would tolerate the situation for a moment longer than is necessary—although the problems are more difficult to solve than words can achieve.

The case that the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised involves two Departments, the Department of Health and Social Security, which is concerned with those inhabitants of Butterwick House who are in need of care and attention, and my own Department, whose interest is in those whose only need is a roof over their heads. I am therefore speaking on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services as well as dealing with my own Department's responsibility.

Before I come to the question of re-housing from Butterwick House, I think I should first of all explain why the building is coming down.

Butterwick House is in a part of Hammersmith centred on the Broadway which has many serious planning defects—poor layout, worn out and obsolescent buildings and, as many motorists who have driven past will testify, bad traffic congestion. Several years ago, the planning authority came to the conclusion that positive action should be taken to remedy these defects. In 1964 the London County Council formally resolved that an area of 38 acres should be dealt with as an area of comprehensive development. This resolution was accepted by the new G.L.C, which proposed to designate the area as an action area for the purposes of the Greater London Development Plan. Hon. Members will know that this plan is now being examined by the Greater London Development Plan Inquiry Panel.

Acting on these development plan policies, the borough council has been seeking to provide a co-ordinated scheme of redevelopment to halt the progressive decline in commercial development and to revitalise the area as a shopping and employment centre. As part of its plan the council bought the freehold of Butterwick House and the freeholds of a number of surrounding properties. These and other properties were included by the council in a compulsory purchase order submitted to the then Minister of Housing in 1970. The order was confirmed in August last year by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment following a public inquiry.

At the inquiry the council pointed out that two major developments were already proceeding on the order lands and adjoining lands—an office building and an air terminal and hotel. The council considered that redevelopment of the whole site in such an important central position was clearly necessary and that only if it were treated as a whole would a co-ordinated development of suitable size and character be achieved. These arguments were accepted by my right hon. Friend in deciding to confirm the order. I should point out that Rowtons (Hammersmith) Limited, the occupiers of Butterwick House, objected to the order in the initial stages, but withdrew its objection before the inquiry.

That, then, is the background to the demolition of Butterwick House, and I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the closure is not the result of a hasty judgment but the result of carefully-considered planning over a long period of years. However, I accept that it is very unfortunate that the hostel is in an area requiring redevelopment. The loss of Butterwick House will exacerbate the problem caused by the decline in lodging house accommodation in London. As one who is concerned about the housing problem of London, naturally I regret any such incident.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Acton)

As the hon. Gentleman will know, my own constituency adjoins this area, and these are facilities which my area uses. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that where redevelopment of this sort is wanted we should look at the social problems arising from the squeezing out of such facilities as these, which are of great signifi- cance in these areas and help partially to solve a national problem as well as one concerning London?

Mr. Channon

Certainly I accept what has been said about the housing situation and about the reducing number of lodging houses. I shall deal with that problem in a moment.

I had considerable sympathy with what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about the problems facing the Hammersmith Borough Council. It is not just Hammersmith's problem. The people who live in Butterwick House live in Hammersmith, but they are drawn not only from the Hammersmith area. Yet it is Hammersmith which is faced with this situation at the present time. No one in this House has criticised Hammersmith Council, but it has been criticised strongly outside for failing to provide adequate alternative arrangements. In view of the situation, the council has been concerned all along to alleviate the harmful effects of the closure and has taken all positive steps open to it to do so.

In July last year, a month before the compulsory purchase order for Butterwick House was confirmed, the council called a meeting of all interested parties. Representatives from 11 voluntary organisations were present as well as representatives from Rowton Hotels, the Camberwell Reception Centre, the British Association of Social Workers, the probation service and the Department of Health and Social Security. Two working parties were set up—one to carry out a survey to identify residents who might need help, and one to consider the long-term problem of providing accommodation for homeless men of this kind.

The survey was carried out in September last year by Hammersmith Social Services Department and has been followed by a further survey. It identified about 140 men as being in need of long-term supportive care, all of whom were expected to remain in Butterwick until it closed at the beginning of June. Most of the remainder of the men surveyed appeared to be able-bodied, in full-time employment and—I would stress this—fairly certain that they would be able to find their own accommodation. Some had already made plans to stay with relations or intended to move into other Rowton Houses. Indeed, Rowton Hotels informed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Social Services that it was confident it would be able to rehouse any of the men from Butterwick who wished to stay in Rowton Houses.

As a result of the working parties' efforts the council is making arrangements with two voluntary organisations, the Cyrenians and St. Mungo's, to set up six small homes which will accommodate about 80 men. The council is providing the houses and giving financial support. One home is already occupied, and it is hoped that the others will open in a few weeks. In addition, the council will be making accommodation available, for example, in old people's homes, and altogether suitable accommodation has been found for well over 100 men in need of supportive care. With the help of volunteers and advertising, the council is also looking for landladies in the area who are willing to accept ex-residents of Butterwick who need a sympathetic environment.

The gradual closure of Butterwick started at the beginning of this month—I confirm what the hon. and learned Gentleman told the House—and places are being closed at the rate of 62 a week. All the men who had to leave Butterwick House were given priority tickets for admission to the three other Rowton Houses in London—in Camden Town, Whitechapel and Vauxhall. Transport to other houses for any men who want to move is being provided by the council. On the first Saturday 62 priority tickets were issued, but only four were used. In the second week there was no need to turn anyone away, and there were still 80 vacant places. In the third week there were 60 vacancies.

This is in line with information given by Rowton Hotels that during spring and summer a large proportion of the men in its houses leave London to take up jobs on the coast. There is no reason to believe that during the closure any men will be left walking the streets or sleeping rough. It is always open to people in this situation to seek accommodation at the Supplementary Benefits Commission's Camberwell Reception Centre, but I understand that the impending closure of Butterwick House has not had any repercussions on the centre. The men are, in fact, leaving faster than the building is being closed, to summer jobs, to other Rowton Houses or to accommodation they have arranged themselves. During the first three weeks of the rundown period at Butterwick there have been vacancies every night at the totality of Rowton Houses. The lowest number was 29 on 8th March; the number reached a peak of 136 on 18th March.

I entirely agree that the residents of Butterwick House should have as much information as possible about alternative accommodation, and I am very pleased that Hammersmith, together with workers from voluntary organisations, is planning to use a small empty shop close to Butterwick House as an advice centre for residents who are still worried about their future. Both the council and the Department of Health and Social Security are keeping the situation under constant review. I am pleased to learn that the council, following the advice given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, will be opening a permanent housing aid centre later this year.

The council as a social services authority has a duty, for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is answerable under Section 21(1)(a) of the National Assistance Act, 1948, to provide residential accommodation for people who, because of their age or infirmity, or some other reason, require care and attention not otherwise available to them. However, it can be shown that the council has taken a very responsible view of its duties under this provision.

The council is also not neglecting the needs of those whose requirement is a roof over their heads rather than a supportive environment. Positive steps have been taken to assist men to find those places. A number of men have already made their own arrangements without direct help from the authority. If—from the information I have been given this is very unlikely—some men cannot find accommodation, the council will look sympathetically at their housing needs against the many other pressing claims with which it has to contend.

No one will know better than the hon. and learned Gentleman that Hammersmith has a severe housing problem. with a large waiting list and a shortage of housing land. The hon. and learned Gentleman will be pleased to know that the Government have just been able to make a small contribution towards the relief of this shortage by releasing a 4½-acre site in the borough, at present in the ownership of the Ministry of Defence, to be used for housing purposes. I am sure that the council will continue to use every effort to ensure that by the time Butterwick House is closed no one will be left without a roof over his head.

Finally, I would like to turn to the more general issue which the hon. and learned Gentleman raised and which is very crucial—the question of homeless single people in London and the action needed to provide accommodation for them. There is little concrete evidence of the numbers of homeless single people in London. The Supplementary Benefits Commission in 1965 found that some 300 were sleeping rough in London but the number is now believed to be considerably higher. For example, about 8,000 pass through the Camberwell Reception Centre each year, of whom well over half have special personality and other problems as well as a need for accommodation. There is increasing pressure for more provision to be made for accommodation for single persons of all kinds. The Working Party on Homelessness in London, set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, will be making recommendations on these problems in the very near future. We hope to deal with this expeditiously.

The hon. and learned Gentleman also drew attention to the Survey of Lodging Houses now in preparation by the Department of Health and Social Security, and I hope that we shall have further information about that very soon. I assure the House that the Government will deal expeditiously with these surveys as soon as they are available. The problems raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman are being taken very seriously indeed by both the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health and Social Security, both in and out of London. The number of lodging houses in the country is dwindling in our big cities.

By drawing attention to this problem the hon. and learned Gentleman has done considerable service not only to the people in Butterwick House but to all people in this situation. The Government will consider the problem very carefully as soon as the reports of the Working Party on Homelessness in London and the Survey of Lodging Houses are received. No doubt other surveys are being conducted by the London boroughs. We shall deal expeditiously with this very important matter and with the problems which could arise if such accommodation were to dwindle still further than it has done.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Five o'clock.