HC Deb 24 May 1974 vol 874 cc821-32

2.20 p.m.

Mr. Bryan Davies (Enfield, North)

This is the second occasion this week when I have felt moved to bring to the attention of the House the enormous problems of housing in Greater London. On Monday, Mr. Speaker, I was privileged to catch your eye in an attempt to advance arguments in support of the GLC's proposals to spend considerable amounts of money on necessary muni-cipalisation of housing stock in order that many of the problems which I shall seek to identify today should receive an early remedy.

Because of the profundities of parliamentary procedure—and I confess that I became submerged in a sea of incomprehension that evening—I understand that, with both Front Benches happy at the result, we are due to resume the debate at an early stage. I regret the delay, from whichever cause, because it seems to me that problems of London housing and homelessness deserve the greatest priority on the part of my Government.

Today I seek to identify in particular the following three points: first, the most disturbing consequences and results of our past failures to provide adequate housing stock in Greater London. Secondly, I seek to make demands upon the Minister for urgent measures to improve the situation. Thirdly, I should like to develop briefly some aspects of the longer-term perspectives which it seems to me are necessary in order that we shall in due course resolve the major housing problems facing this capital city and the country as a whole.

In answer to the first basic question to which inevitably this debate is bound to give rise—how many homeless are there in London today?—one can only answer in a graphic, though somewhat negative, fashion, that no one knows, any more than anyone has even known, how many there are, because there is no easy measure of what homelessness is. Whether one takes the very narrowest definition of all—namely, that we count the numbers who have applied to welfare departments on the grounds of their homelessness, or whether one chooses a much wider definition, which I personally prefer, that one should count as homeless in our society all those who live in conditions which are so bad that civilised family life is impossible—whichever definition one chooses, can anyone doubt that the numbers in distress are greatly increasing?

There are well-documented causes of homelessness, but in some respects these documented causes are the superficial aspects of the problem. There is clearly the question of evictions—people evicted for such reasons as rent arrears or unauthorised occupancy. There is homelessness born of the fact that social tensions within a family develop, and the break-up of families increases the number of households making a demand upon our housing accommodation. There is the factor that, as always in the past, and presumably as will be the case in the future, and certainly as is the case at present, London provides a magnetic attraction for large numbers of people seeking their fortunes, some perhaps with the optimism of Dick Whittington. Others, perhaps born of the pessimism of the circumstances in which they are living elsewhere, come to London in order to live, and so provide extra dimensions to the problems of housing in the capital city.

The deeper pressures, however, which underlie this causation are the pressures upon the existing accommodation, simply because this accommodation in London has in recent years been increasing far too slowly When one adds to this the compound of inflation which in the matter of house prices has been more dramatic than in any other field of social cost, one sees the development of a housing problem in which the cost of owner-occupation in the capital city is so dramatically high that many people, who in previous decades or as little as five or six years ago could have looked upon owner-occupation as having the potential to resolve their accommodation difficulties, no longer have the resources to qualify for mortgages.

Secondly, there is the well-documented decrease in rented private accommodation which clearly presents particular difficulties in catering for some of the categories of people whom I shall identify as being homeless subsequently in my speech.

Finally, there is the fact that the numbers of houses built by local authorities in the London area over recent years have been far too few. Indeed, last year —and these figures were reflected in the debate on Monday—the number of council houses built was lower than for a decade past. This failure to build sufficient houses in London and to increase the housing stock has greatly increased the degree of homelessness in the city.

When one is talking about homelessness one is not talking just of the 19th century perspective of the vagrant, the individual drifting into the capital city and finding himself without a home. As the Shelter report of 25th April-1st May says, The typical London homeless family is a head of household aged about 26, a mother and one or two children living on about £33 per week gross, and paying over £6 a week for one room in Brent, Lambeth or Wandsworth, or sharing with friends or relatives. Such a family is typical of the 9,473 London families who approached the Shelter Housing Aid Centre in 1973. The report explodes many popular myths about homeless families. Only one in five families had three or more children. Half the families interviewed had lived in London for 10 years or more. 42 per cent. of families had no tenure of their own, they were literally without a home, or crammed in with friends or relatives. 25 per cent. had their own place but were threatened with eviction, and 15 per cent. were in sub-standard or overcrowded accommodation. Clearly, what that report identifies is that one is talking about homelessness not in the context of a shifting population necessarily, not in terms of some of the categories of the past but in terms of the dimensions of the social problems which have emerged greatly over the past decade. Despite the fact that I seek to demonstrate that it is homeless families who provide many of the difficulties in London, one should also recognise that the problems of the single homeless individual are also very intense. Long-term social changes which cause, for example, individuals at an earlier stage in their own lives to strike out afresh and leave the family home create pressures upon the housing stock as they themselves become separate household units.

The most obvious category but by no means the most numerous is that of students. I greatly welcome the expansion of higher education, and we all recognise that it is producing great advantage to many of our young people. Basically, however, it has taken place without any significant attempt to recognise the enormous social problems involved in terms of housing, for example, which quite clearly will be with us over the next decade. If the Government remain committed to anything like the targets outlined in the White Paper of December 1972—and I regret the degree of backsliding that those figures represent—very large numbers of students will be setting up their own households.

The pressure is very intense in London, where the institutions of higher education are numerous and renowned. In this context I welcome the development, for example, in Lewisham of co-operative ownership of student dwellings, in which Housing Corporation funds have been imaginatively put towards providing 152 student dwellings.

We have to recognise, however, that we must think much more extensively than this small start. We have to cope not merely with the problem of student accommodation but with increasing demands for single-person accommodations. We must begin to think of such provision now. It is a well-known truism of the housing problem that it is not that there is an insufficient number of housing units but that so many of the units are of the wrong type or are in the wrong areas. This is a perennial problem. The housing stock is not easy to adjust to changing social patterns. One can discern certain pressures ahead as a result of Government policies, and we must recognise that aspects such as education policy must be closely related to those of accommodation and housing.

Concern is being expressed in many informed quarters in London about the transfer of responsibility for accommodation for the homeless from the social service departments to the housing departments. This was and remains a controversial decision, and the move needs to be carefully monitored to ensure that the transfer works to the best advantage of those most in need.

Many individuals are expressing concern about the existing situation, particularly when social service departments are having increasing responsibility placed upon them—for example, their role in community welfare for the mentally handicapped. The concern is that the departments are losing a crucial control over housing accommodation. The problem may be readily resolved by the fruitful co-operation which exists between departments in the best authorities, but it must be recognised that such co-operation is not always forthcoming in every local authority in Britain, or even in London alone.

Homelessness is one of our most appalling temporary social problems in London. In identifying that problem we are asking the Government to ensure that the long-term trends, which require imaginative housing developments, are carefully considered and that the planning is carried out now in relation to our housing stock. Secondly, careful attention must be paid to how the homeless are to be housed by the local authorities within their relative responsibilities.

I am grateful for this opportunity of re-emphasising to the Government that many of us consider that in London housing is our greatest social problem.

2.35 p.m.

Mr. A. W. Stallard (St. Pancras, North)

I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in a debate on one of the most serious problems affecting inner London and many other parts of the capital—homelessness. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield. North (Mr. Davies) mentioned some of the causes and dealt briefly with the definition. I shall try not to repeat too much of what he said, but it is difficult for any London Member to follow another London Member and avoid repetition because the problems are so widely spread throughout the London area.

Many of us must be heartened by the attempts recently made by the Greater London Council on the initiative of Alderman Paddy O'Connor, to do something about one of our most serious problems —that of the real homeless, the down-and-outs, the drop-outs, and in many cases students and others who nightly sleep rough because there is no alternative. I want to pay tribute to what Alderman O'Connor and his GLC comrades have done in this respect.

It is a sad reflection on all of us, when we think about the Charing Cross Hospital venture, that Sir Reginald Goodwin and the GLC are having almost to go round with a begging bowl to get the finance to keep the hostel, as the hospital has become, going to deal with some of our worst problems. I understand that the cost will be about £100,000 a year. When we consider what is spent in many other directions, that is a small price to pay for the kind of service being organised by the GLC.

I hope that the financial factor will be considered by the Government with a view to much more aid being given to that project and others like it. A few hours from now, scores of men and women throughout London will be taking up their positions on the street, 1ying on newspapers and covered by them, because there is nowhere else for them to go.

We tend to think that so many of the people sleeping rough are down-and-outs and drop-outs, and some of them are, Many of them, however, are hardworking men and women who have been illegally evicted—dehoused—as a result of an improvement or conversion scheme which has left no room for them. Again, sadly enough, many single people, young and not so young, are in need of housing. They have no qualifications for council housing. They literally have nowhere to go when events overtake them. I ask for more purpose-built structures like the Charing Cross project, financed from the national Exchequer, in order to help us to deal with these problems.

There are a number of examples where the loss of accommodation is adding to the problems of inner London, and I am in the unhappy situation of representing an area in which there are examples of every category of homelessness. If hon. Members think of a new category, I can show them an example of it. Well-known and traditional hostels like the Rowton Houses are being closed. I believe that there are now only about two or three of them left. Others have been converted into hotels and are now let or are occupied by students and others. They were previously occupied by homeless men, and in some cases, women. That lost accommodation has never been replaced.

My hon. Friend mentioned the large number of educational institutions in inner London. Places in those institutions are much sought after by students from all over the world, and when they arrive they bring with them the problem of homelessness. Those who are fortunate are catered for by rapacious landlords who can earn a great deal of money by letting accommodation on a short-term basis. This practice is to the detriment of the homeless because of the circumstances in inner London. Many more units of accommodation are being let in that way because of the short-term gains.

Another point concerns the shift of responsibility for the problem of homelessness from the Department of Health and Social Security to the housing departments. I want my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the restoration of the statutory function. The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) will remember that earlier this year I moved an amendment to try to prevent this statutory duty on homelessness being taken away from the local authorities. Its substitution by a ministerial directive has been another element in creating hardship and homelessness. This is a recognised fact among the bodies which help the homeless. They are convinced that that action had a detrimental effect on the services provided for the homeless.

2.43 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Rossi (Hornsey)

I intervene simply to say that my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself share the very real concern about homeless families which exist throughout the Greater London area. The problem has been growing faster in the last few years and different solutions have been put forward as to how it can be dealt with. Possibly there is no absolute answer, but that should not deter anybody from trying as best they can to meet the human problems that exist. I feel particular concern, possibly because I am the father of a growing family, for young people who want to marry and form their own families. The situation in London at present means that it is becoming well-nigh impossible.

It is very difficult to understand why the problem should exist since we know that the population of the capital is declining substantially and, even with a constant housing stock, accommodation should become easier. In fact, the housing stock has grown, so there seems to be an inconsistency in the situation. The studies which have been conducted, particularly by Shelter, show large areas of under-occupation in the Greater London area, even in areas of the greatest housing stress. There was a report recently about Islington. In spite of the overcrowding and multi-occupation, there is a vast pool of unused accommodation. Local authorities and private landlords are in this position, and, therefore, we possibly need a re-examination of the whole question of under-occupation of property and consideration whether people with spare accommodation might not be encouraged to bring it on the market.

I am not sure that sending the bulldozer into areas to make way for new housing estates is necessarily the right answer. A much better idea is the provision in the Conservative Housing and Planning Bill, now the Housing Bill, for the declaration of housing action areas to maintain communities as they are, salvaging, resuscitating and modernising structurally-sound buildings which can be made damp-free and provided with modern conveniences. We welcome the conversion of the old Victorian homes, built for families with huge staffs of servants but no longer appropriate to our circumstances, into reasonable-sized homes required by families today. That is one direction in which we should bend our efforts; with the declining population we can probably achieve more, far more quickly and more economically than in any other way.

2.48 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Robert C. Brown)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies) for introducing this debate, because the problem of homelessness is serious and growing. It is only right that the House should spend time reviewing what has been done and what more can be done to ease the plight of those who find themselves in this dreadful predicament. When we refer to single homeless people we are not talking of a homogenous group. It covers many different types within it ranging from those whose only problem is finding a place to stay to those who could not live under a roof without care and help.

There is the failure to provide stock. No man is an island in this situation, and it is not possible to consider the problem in isolation from the general housing situation. There is an inter-relationship which cannot be ignored. Less family housing might mean more competition between families and single people for what is available with the latter being squeezed out. It might equally mean that families could be squeezed out by single people clubbing together to share what could be accommodation for a family.

It is right to bear in mind the general housing problem and what the Government are doing about it. The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) said that he shared the concern which exists about the homeless. He asked why the problem should exist. There is no denying that the problem exists mainly because of the housing situation. I do not need to rehearse the facts of what can only be described as the complete collapse of the house building programme during the first years of this decade, at a time when the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Conservative Government.

In 1970 there were 350,000 completions, including 180,000 in the public sector. In 1973 the total was down to 24,000, with only 107,000 in the public sector. We mean to remedy the appalling shortage of homes to rent and to buy at reasonable prices and have set housing as one of our main priorities.

Mr. Rossi

The hon. Gentleman talks of the collapse of the housing programme at the beginning of this decade. Does he agree that when his party took office in 1964 it inherited a building programme of 400,000 houses a year which had been reduced to 200,000 when the Labour Government left office in 1970?

Mr. Brown

I am not prepared to say that we in the Labour Government were satisfied with our record of completions. However, in view of the disastrous fall in the programme at a time when there was plenty of building labour and building material available no alibi can be put forward for the Tory Party's record in the last three and a half years.

We have already taken decisive action to boost the provision of council houses. We have no doubt that the only way forward in cheap rented accommodation is by social ownership. We have made an additional £350 million available to allow local authorities to press forward with new contracts, with acquiring new but unsold houses from developers, and with buying unrented property in the worst areas of housing stress. We have also taken steps to freeze rents for the rest of this year, and we have taken action to hold down mortgage rates. Which hon. Member would be bold enough to say that we would not have a 13 per cent. mortgage rate now had it not been for the action of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment?

We shall soon introduce a long overdue measure to give security of tenure to many furnished tenants. This will be of particular help to single people, many of whom are furnished tenants, and we hope that this will prevent many from becoming homeless who might otherwise have found themselves on the streets.

We have other important measures in preparation—not least a radical new Bill to replace the Housing Finance Act 1972. However, to round off the picture for the purpose of the present debate, I mention only the Housing Bill, which is now in Committee. It provides for a great strengthening of the voluntary housing movement, for the establishment of housing action areas in the worst areas of housing stress, and for a new look to the financial arrangements for improving existing housing. I agree with the hon. Member for Hornsey that if a house is sound it is better to bring it up to modern standards than to demolish it, as we have tended to do in the postwar years.

Of particular relevance to today's debate is the fact that the Housing Bill includes new measures to help hostels. I shall return to this point.

I wish to mention the question of the reimposition, if there is to be a re-imposition, of a statutory duty on housing authorities for housing the homeless. This point was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies) and St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard). I well remember my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North tabling an amendment to the Local Government Bill to do precisely what both my hon. Friends have suggested. As this question does not fall directly within my responsibility, may I simply say that I understand that an amendment has been, or is to be, tabled to the Housing Bill in Committee. I suggest to both my hon. Friends that that is the best place to pursue the matter.

I turn to the question of Charing Cross Hospital. At the end of last year the Greater London Council asked whether the vacant part of the hospital could be used to relieve the problems of homelessness in London. After a series of helpful meetings and discussions, the Secretary of State agreed that, subject to certain conditions, part of the property should be made available to the GLC at a nominal rent—I stress "a nominal rent" —to be used as a hostel for men referred from recognised agencies.

I understand that the GLC has arranged for the St. Mungo Community Trust—a voluntary association well versed in these matters—to run the hostel, and it is now in occupation. The trust does an excellent job, and I am sure that it will go a good job at Charing Cross. The number of men to be accommodated is uncertain as a good deal of work is needed to bring it up to the required standard. But the places likely to become available should make a helpful contribution to the provision of accommodation for men without a home of their own. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect to be given in a short debate of this type a definitive answer on costs or a firm commitment. I shall consider the question he has raised.

Many other points worthy of answer have been raised, and I apologise that I cannot, in the two minutes remaining to me, answer all of them. However, if there is any point which I should have answered but have not answered, I shall write to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North about it.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North for raising this most important topic. The Government recognise the seriousness of the problem, and we are determined to do all we can to combat it. We are heartened by the GLCs initiative and by the response of the London Boroughs Association to the problem of homeless single people. The voluntary bodies have led the way for many years, and the Government—and, I am sure, the London Boroughs Association—will continue to support their work. It will take a com- bined and determined effort by central Government and local government, in conjunction with the voluntary organisations, to alleviate to any appreciable extent the problem of homelessness among single people in London.