HC Deb 18 April 1973 vol 855 cc468-71
4. Mr. William Hamilton

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his proposals for dealing with those property developers making substantial profits from house improvement grants.

9. Mr. Stallard

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the report of the Committee on Housing Improvement Grants.

10. Mr. Thomas Cox

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the report of the Committee on Housing Improvement Grants.

Mr. Channon

My right hon. and learned Friend has not yet completed his comprehensive review of policy on older housing, which includes improvement grant policy. A statement will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Hamilton

Does not the Minister agree that a problem exists here and that there is a scandal which needs to be dealt with? In so far as there is the scandal of profiteering and speculation, nothing, or very little, is being done to solve the housing problem for which the housing improvement grant scheme was instigated. In view of that, will the Minister take urgent steps to deal with this matter as expeditiously as he can?

Mr. Channon

The hon. Gentleman slightly exaggerates the position. I think it would be common ground throughout the House that the improvement grant scheme has been a major step forward in improving our older and obsolescent housing, and the ghastly conditions of many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people who have to live in appalling housing conditions.

I agree that there is a problem, but the hon. Gentleman exaggerates its importance.

Sir G. Nabarro

On the subject of scandals, is not the real scandal in this context the fact that housing grants are limited to only £1,000 and that from the point of view of the Government it would be a far better investment if the limit were at least doubled, in order to induce an even greater number of people to improve their house properties, thereby increasing rateable values and lessening the burden on the central taxpayer?

Mr. Channon

I note my hon. Friend's view. Very few improvement grants come anywhere near the present £1,000 limit.

Mr. Stallard

Is the Minister aware that his reply will disappoint thousands of people throughout the country and, more particularly, those in areas such as mine, in inner London? Does he really understand the racket that is going on in conversion and improvement grants in inner London? Does he know about the squatting problem, and the difficulties of squatters? Did he read in the Press this morning about the eruption of violence in my constituency arising out of this problem? Does he know about the problems of evictions, and of youngsters seeking a home in Camden Town, where a one-bedroomed flat costs £12,750? Does he know about the problems of teachers and other workers who are searching for the last few furnished tenancies which are available in inner London? Does not the Minister appreciate—

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is quite a good go.

Mr. Stallard

Will the Minister consider—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think that the Minister already has enough for consideration on his plate.

Mr. Channon

I am well aware of the problems that exist in the stress areas of our big cities, and, in particular, in inner London—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of listening to the answer, as he put such a long question, he will have noted that the White Paper just published promised that the Government's proposals will be brought forward following a review of the policy on older housing.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

If improvement grants were included in assessing liability for income tax, those who need it most would receive it at practically no deduction and those who need it least would pay a heavy rate of tax on what they receive, would they not?

Mr. Channon

I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's very interesting views.

Mr. Cox

Returning to the Minister's reply, is not he fully aware that we are opposed not to housing improvement grants when they are being properly used but to the callous indifference shown by property speculators to the people living in those properties in trying to get them out by any means that they can and thus make substantial profits? Already throughout London, in spite of the inquiry that is taking place, properties are being bought up and left to remain empty for weeks and weeks at a time. There are 100,000 empty properties in London. When will the Minister do something about it?

Mr. Channon

I had a meeting with the hon. Gentleman's borough on this very topic yesterday. We discussed the problem of empty houses. I made it perfectly clear that I hoped local authorities would make the best use of their own properties and that in cases where private people were blatantly leaving their properties empty for long periods my right hon. Friend would be prepared to consider a compulsory purchase order.

I must point out, however, that if there is this great scandal about improvement grants in inner London it is the boroughs themselves which make the improvement grants.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim

In view of what my hon. Friend has said, will he encourage local authorities in areas where there is acute housing shortage to purchase such premises and make use of improvement grants to provide extra housing much more quickly than would otherwise be done?

Mr. Channon

As always, my hon. Friend has made a most helpful and useful suggestion.

Mr. Freeson

Why does the Minister have to wait until he has completed this review, for which we have been waiting so long? Does not he agree that at least two points can now be clearly accepted by all of us? On the one hand, there is abuse in certain areas in London, and possibly elsewhere in the country, to which my hon. Friends have been referring, and, on the other, large areas of landlord-owned twilight property are not being tackled. Does the Minister agree that that is so? If he does, in order to tackle both problems will he accept the recommendation of the Layfield Report and the policy which has been advocated by the London Labour Party, of a massive takeover of these properties by municipalities, in order to get the job done?

Mr. Channon

I should be much more inclined to accept the Layfield Report than the advice of the London Labour Party. The wholesale policy of municipalisation suggested by the Labour Party would not add one house to the housing stock. What the White Paper promised was that we would bring forward proposals for housing stress areas following the review of older housing policy. If the Opposition will promise us the time to complete it by the end of the summer, that will be a great help.