Improvement Grants (Hansard, 8 November 1972)

§ 34. Mr. Stallard
asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has had an opportunity to study the recent report, a copy of which is in his possession, issued by Shelter in October, 1972, concerning abuses, etc., of improvement grants; and if he will make a statement.

§ Mr. Eyre
My right hon. Friend has read the report with great interest and has arranged for it to be further studied.

§ Mr. Stallard
Is the Secretary of State aware that there seems to be far too much secrecy about the relevant statistics relating to improvement grants, particularly in the inner London area, and that hon. Members like myself who are interested in those statistics are having difficulty in obtaining them? From the figures that have been published in some inner London boroughs it is clear that up to two-thirds of grants awarded have gone to speculators and landlords, and in at least one case up to 45 per cent. of the houses inspected for improvement grant were empty at the time of inspection. Will the Minister initiate a survey to find out where the tenants have gone?

§ Mr. Eyre
The statistics are, of course, available to the hon. Member on the individual borough basis. [HON. MEMBERS: "They will not give them."] That information should certainly be obtainable from the individual boroughs, and I am surprised to hear the hon. Member complaining in that respect. He will know that a working party is studying in great 996 detail, jointly with the London boroughs, the social implications of the work of improvement grants.

§ Mr. Crosland
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that we are all sorry not to see either the new Secretary of State or the new Minister for Housing and Construction with us this afternoon? I read recently in The Guardian that the new Secretary of State, when appointed Minister of Works, spent the first two days of his appointment watching cricket. He has no doubt flown off to Portugal today with Derby County instead of attending to his duties. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] I would have thought that it was a matter of common courtesy for a newly appointed Secretary of State to attend his first Question Time.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred once again to further study and further inquiry. Will he agree that the evidence shows that at least in parts of inner London improvement grants are being grossly abused, with bad results for the housing situation? As specific proposals for action have been made in the Shelter report will he stop endless further study and inquiry and instead do something to end the abuse?

§ Mr. Eyre
I emphasise to the right hon. Gentleman that the decision to house families in need must lie with local authorities. Thus, local authorities have discretion whether or not to make a grant.

§ Mr. Fletcher-Cooke
There is still a great deal of ill feeling about discrepancies in the way in which that discretion is exercised, particularly between neighbouring authorities. The population simply does not understand how such wide differences can arise in the exercise of discretion. Is that a topic which will be embraced by the study?

§ Mr. Eyre
My hon. and learned Friend is correct in saying that there are discrepancies in the way in which the various local authorities operate the schemes. That is the price which must be paid for giving a discretion to local authorities—a cause which is regularly championed in the House. There are also considerable differences between the various localities, and most of all between the various kinds of properties and the improvement work involved. It is a matter 997 which must therefore be left to local discretion.

§ 35. Mr. Thomas Cox
asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the number of authorities who have complained to him regarding the abuse of the present housing improvement grant system.

§ Mr. Eyre
It is not possible to record the precise number of representations made on any given subject. As regards improvement grants, however, it is up to local authorities to deal with possible abuses by exercising their discretion whether or not to make grants in particular cases.

§ Mr. Cox
That reply is totally unsatisfactory to hon. Members who represent inner London seats. If the Parliamentary Secretary will read last Sunday's Observer he will be left in no doubt about the concern of many local authorities who are prepared to give the information, and he will then understand what we on these benches have been saying for months about the amount of money that is going to the private developer compared with the owner-occupier. We in inner London, and certainly in Wandsworth, are finding that tenants are being hounded out of homes in which they have lived for many years by private developers who are making use of the grants but could not care less what is happening to the tenants or their families. When will there be legislation to protect them?

§ Mr. Eyre
The statistics must be seen in perspective, and I should therefore report on the allocation of grants during the first six months of this year. Fifty thousand grants went to local authorities for house improvement, 3,000 went to housing associations, 57,000 went to owner-occupiers and 31,000 went to landlords. There is a safeguard for tenants who occupy protected tenancies, and they have no need to fear. In London they are advised by the housing advisory centres about such matters. The penalties for harassment have been severely increased. In any cases that the hon. Member mentions which are open to abuse it is for the local authorities, with their local knowledge, to refuse a grant.

§ Mr. Cockeram
Does my hon. Friend accept that house improvement grants are merely a contribution to the improvement 998 of houses, that many tenants cannot afford to find the balance of the money involved, and that therefore in this respect the property developer fulfils a useful function?

§ Mr. Eyre
There is no doubt that many properties have been improved by people who are prepared to invest in work of this kind. But it must be admitted—and it is probably particularly important in London—that there are areas of special difficulty where the situation needs examining carefully. That is the purpose of the Working Party on Areas of Housing Stress in London.

§ Mr. Frank Allaun
As a first step, will the Under-Secretary impose a three-years condition against the sale of properties if grants have been advanced? Is he aware that thousands of poor and not-so-poor tenants are so angry about the abuse which is taking place that they believe that the only effective solution to the problem is that the municipalities should take over and improve the houses themselves?

§ Mr. Eyre
The hon. Gentleman will remember that it was the previous Administration, in 1969, which, after careful consideration, repealed the conditions which he now seeks to reimpose.