HC Deb 14 January 1976 vol 903 cc366-71
5. Mr. Nicholas Winterton

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many house renovation grants were authorised for the first 11 months of 1975 compared with the same period in the previous year.

Mr. Freeson

Grants for approximately 119,000 dwellings in England and Wales were approved in the first 11 months of 1975, compared with 224,000 in the same period in 1974.

Mr. Winterton

Is the Minister aware that that is an obviously disappointing reply? It indicates that the Government do not give sufficient priority to the improvement and renovation of existing homes. Does he agree that the improvement and renovation of existing homes, particularly cottage properties, in many towns is more satisfactory and cheaper than demolishing dwellings and building new homes? Does he further agree that the improvement and renovation of existing homes keeps communities together, which in turn prevents a lot of vandalism and other crimes which have recently increased?

Mr. Freeson

I am not sure about the last point. It would be wrong to oversimplify the causes of vandalism and social violence.

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I accept broadly what he said, which virtually paraphrased what we are saying in our policy circulars to local authorities. The figures are disappointing, even if we allow for an expected reduction following the ending of the 1971 temporary Act, which increased grants and the imposition of conditions on the issuing of grants—which are common ground between both sides of the House—to stop abuses. We are concerned to see greater publicity and efforts by local authorities to speed up the process. We must also take account of a period in which the housing market slowed down because a great deal of the improvements in the past in the private sector took place when old properties changed hands. A number of factors led to the slowdown. It is far too great a slowdown from our point of view and we shall do our best to increase the take-up.

Mr. Rose

I welcome the change in emphasis in my hon. Friend's policy. Is he aware that the amount of money at present being spent on improvements is becoming increasingly prohibitive for ordinary house owners? Will he encourage a further increase back to 75 per cent. for large-scale compulsory purchase and development areas in the cities, because in the short term as well as in the long term that may lead to a reduction rather than an increase in local authority expenditure?

Mr. Freeson

My hon. Friend has indirectly pinpointed an aspect of the policy to which I did not refer earlier, and that is that in so far as one seeks to get an improvement in activity here, particularly bearing in mind the financial situation in which we find ourselves, the priorities must go to the stress areas. Although perhaps not in precisely the terms that my hon. Friend has put to me, the fact is that we have acted along those lines, in that 75 per cent. grants are available on properties in designated housing action areas, and 60 per cent. grants are available in designated general improvement areas, compared with the normal 50 per cent. generally throughout the country.

Mr. Stephen Ross

Has the hon. Gentleman reached a conclusion about raising the lower limit of rateable value, which is £175 in rural areas? He has been considering this, and it would help if this decision could be made and the lower limit raised.

Mr. Freeson

We have made it clear, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reinforced this in a recent speech, that we are examining this matter. We are still collating information about how rateable value levels are affecting take-up. Although we have not yet come to a conclusion, because of the way things are we are likely to give sympathetic consideration to conversions for owner-occupied properties, which would ease the situation in those areas from which we have received information that there is some inhibition in carrying out this work.

Mrs. Millie Miller

In view of the vast number of empty properties in the centre of London, which is a stress area to end all stress areas, is it not time that my hon. Friend considered having a formula for using these properties and thereby using some of the grants that are available for conversion? There are enough properties in the centre of London to satisfy the housing needs of central London dwellers if these houses can be brought into use. I strongly recommend my hon. Friend to start work on a system of ensuring that these houses are used for people to live in rather than that these properties should remain empty.

Mr. Freeson

I accept the seriousness of the point that is being put to me, although it goes wide of the specific subject covered by the Question. The position is that local authorities have a general consent to negotiate purchase. Additional compulsory purchase powers were granted to them under the 1974 Housing Act. They were given powers by the Government to purchase properties which had been standing empty for more than six months. Beyond that, I have said clearly to representatives of the local authority associations that we shall give sympathetic consideration to the purchase of empty properties within that six-month period if the authorities concerned give us the stress reasons in the areas concerned which have led them to make such applications, and I hope that they will take up that offer.

Mr. Rossi

The hon. Gentleman has given a number of reasons for the lamentable fall in the number of properties being improved by means of grants, which at the time of the Conservative Administration was about 400,000 new houses and homes a year. Is not the truth of the matter that the Government, by their savage cuts in housing subsidies, have always made the heaviest cuts fall upon improvement grants because they insist upon making resources available for irrelevancies, such as municipalisation, which do not improve or provide homes for people?

Mr. Freeson

That is a canard that is frequently trotted out when questions on this subject are asked. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman stopped trotting it out, because it does not relate to the facts. Municipalisation policy carried out by local authorities, or social ownership through housing associations, is directed primarily to properties that are sub-standard and in need of improvement and conversion. This is the policy that we are pursuing.

With regard to expenditure on improvement grants in the private sector, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the figure quoted by him is an exaggeration, although the figures were higher two or three years ago than they are now. That was largely as a result of the 1971 Act, and also because of certain abuses, or flexibilities, to which the Conservative Party decided to put a stop—a policy that we pursued when we came to office.

In addition, as I explained earlier, there have been other reasons for the present situation. We are concerned about what is happening, but it is incorrect and deliberately misleading to suggest that we have undertaken a major cut compared with the Conservative Party's policy for improvement expenditure. The figure which the Conservative Government left us was £169 million a year. We have increased that to more than £250 million.

23. Mr. Peter Bottomley

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to introduce higher rateable value limits for renovation grants for house conversions.

Mr. Freeson

I am considering this matter.

Mr. Bottomley

While not thanking the Minister for a very helpful reply, may I seek his assurance that it makes economic sense for individuals to spend their money on housing? While doctrinaire controls forbidding the sale of council houses are unrealistic, like limits to the range of improvement grants, will he take steps to improve the housing situation in the way that all families seek?

Mr. Freeson

I dealt with this subject in the context of some supplementary questions earlier. Both sides of the House have common ground in the type of conditions introduced in the Housing Act 1974 to stop some of the abuses and free-ranging expenditure in relation to improvement grants. But I have said—and I meant it—that we are looking at the way in which the rateable values that have been fixed are having an effect in some parts of the country and at ways in which they might be changed, and I indicated how I was thinking about the matter.

Mr. Conlan

Will my hon. Friend recognise that the limit of £175 in the provinces is ridiculously small, especially bearing in mind that, as rateable values have increased over the years, it is a very modest house that carries a rateable value of £175? Working-class people who occupy houses with a rateable value a little higher than £175 are unable to improve their properties because of this stupidly low figure.

Mr. Freeson

First, and without going into a great deal of detail on the matter—although I should be happy to write to my hon. Friend in greater detail—it would be wrong to accept the kind of generalised statement that my hon. Friend has made about the rateable value limits, whether those in London or elsewhere. The system does not operate in as blanket a fashion as he suggested. There is certainly no evidence that it is generally inhibiting improvement grant take-up.

However, there are areas where problems have been put to me, and I am examining them. I hope that we shall come to some satisfactory conclusions on the matter shortly. If there are local problems, I should be glad to hear from my hon. Friend or his local authority.