§ Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
§ 1.18 a.m.
§ Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Luton, West)I rise to support the campaign that will stop Luton's Tories selling off council houses and to seek to enlist the support of my hon. Friend the Minister in that campaign.
Even before they have met, Luton's new Tory councillors have shown that they are a bunch of housing wreckers who intend to do to the homeless and those on the housing waiting list what 1909 hooligans in "bovver boots" do to people they manifestly dislike. In their public statements they have made it clear that they intend to bring to housing policies in Luton their own distinctive brand of illiterate Poujadism backed by a small-town, bloody-minded meanness of spirit.
Their housing policies can be summed up in a trice: stop the building of new council houses wherever possible and sell off land, force rents to astronomical heights and run down the council's housing stock by the indiscriminate sale of council houses at a discount.
Tonight I want to concentrate on the harm that will be done to Luton by the sale of council houses. In passing, however, I note that the hammer of council tenants, Mayor Lester—who, like his colleagues, treats them as second-class citizens—has already announced that Labour's proposal to build homes for 2,500 families at Bramingham Wood will be scrapped. He has said that, if the land is to be used for housing at all, the Tories intend to build privately for sale at £25,000 to commuters from Luton. Unfortunately, their message to the people of Luton on the waiting list is "Damn you, Jack—we're all right".
The arguments against the sale of council houses are as follows. It reduces the pool of accommodation to rent at a time when housing to rent constitutes the town's greatest need. It damages mobility and threatens the industrial expansion of towns such as Luton because of a shortage of rented accommodation. While it helps a few of the poor, it damages the interests of the majority of the poor. It may increase public expenditure because the cost of council houses gradually decreases, whereas tax relief on mortgages rises rapidly because of the frequency of reselling.
Older people who buy council houses will find themselves in difficulty when they reach pensionable age. The random freeholds resulting from the sale of council houses creates immense problems in redeveloping estates. It makes no sense for councils to sell existing houses for £10,000 and to have to replace them for £15,000. The policy of selling newer houses can create council ghettos.
All these facts are too well known to need repetition. Between them, they form 1910 an overwhelming case against the sale of council houses, particularly in Luton, where there are 4,000 families on the housing waiting list, which is increasing at the rate of 10 families a week.
Everyone in the House knows that the more houses that are sold, the fewer the relets that are available for people on the waiting list. In towns like Luton, relets form the major part of housing provision for people on the waiting list because of the shortage of building land and the small new building programme. Substantial sales of council houses could create a major crisis which could have serious social consequences for Luton which no one, not even the Tories in the town, would want.
An analysis of the figures is frightening. In the past five years the council has provided 4,074 homes through a combination of new building and relets. About 63 per cent. of this provision is through relets. If there are extensive sales of council houses in Luton, this supply of relets will dry up and other Tory policies will lead to the drying up of the supply of new homes.
The House should have the full figures. In Luton in 1971–72 there were 320 completions and 622 relets. The respective figures for subsequent years were as follows: 1972–73, 178 and 456; 1973–74, 280 and 471; 1974–75, 284 and 494: and 197–6, 418 and 551. In those five years there have been 1,480 completions and 2,594 relets.
One is bound to conclude that Messrs. Lester, Dunington and Hickinbottom are saying to the people on the waiting list who come to my surgery and literally cry because they cannot get a council house "Carry on crying". I cannot help these people because there is not the supply of council houses available.
It is no wonder that the Government issued Circular 70/74, which advised local authorities:
it is generally … wrong for local authorities to sell council houses. The first duty of a local authority is to ensure an adequate supply of rented dwellings.Instead of accepting this sensible advice, Luton's Tories, inspired by malice, political bigotry and a Lady Young—I am not sure which of those is the worst—have decided to embark on a collision course with the Government and the decent people of Luton.1911 I should like to ask the Minister 10 questions. First, what is current Government policy on this issue? Secondly, can he confirm that powers exist—and state what they are—to require authorisation from his Department for the sale of council houses and that this authorisation can be withheld? Is it correct that he can withdraw the general consent which has operated for many years? Is he prepared to impose formal restrictions in areas of great housing need such as Luton where Tory councils act irresponsibly?
Will my hon. Friend take steps to stop the sale of all council houses, whether in areas of housing need or otherwise, al prices below market prices? Is he aware that many discounts on the sale of council houses more than reflect the restriction on the value of houses arising from the local authorities' right of preemption and from restrictions on the re-sale price? Will he issue guidance on discount selling to prevent Tory councils cheating ratepayers and indulging in political bribery?
Can my hon. Friend confirm that it is open to any ratepayer to seek to surcharge local councillors where houses are sold below their market value? When does he intend to make a full statement and issue a comprehensive circular on this matter? Will he condemn Luton's Tories in their irresponsible actions?
Like the rest of my colleagues in the Labour Party, I believe in home ownership. When I was a civil servant in the Ministry of Housing working under my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), the then Labour Government built more private houses and council houses than have been built at any time in our history before or since. That is the way we should proceed. There should be democratic local control of council estates. Council tenants should join councillors on tenants' committees to deal with maintenance and planning matters such as bus stops, telephone kiosks and community facilities. That is the way forward, not by the irresponsible sale of council houses.
§ 1.31 a.m.
§ Mr. Ivor Clemitson (Luton, East)Like many other people in Luton I have a painful adjustment to make, but the painfulness of my adjustment is as 1912 nothing compared with that of many other people, because I have a decent home in which to live. Since I became a Member of Parliament and until a fortnight ago I was used to a Labour-controlled borough council which built hundreds of council houses, planned future development, bought dwellings on the open market and did not sell council houses. When a constituent came to my surgery wanting a council I knew that there was some glimmer of hope, but what hope will there be now?
What hope will anyone be able to offer in the next few years if the Conservatives who now control the council put through their declared housing policy—or perhaps it is more accurate to describe it as a non-policy? The building of council houses must slump, particularly if the Bramingham Wood development is axed. At the same time, council houses will be sold. That must mean fewer council houses to go round. At the same time. the population of the town is growing, the waiting list is growing and more houses become uninhabitable.
What advice and what hope shall I be able to offer to young couples with kiddies living in rooms or in one of the old houses in the town, of which there are many in my constituency, where the damp rises just as surely as the spirits sink? Do I say "Go and buy a house. Do not tell me that you cannot afford it."? It would be fine for them to be able to buy their own house, and we should give them every encouragement to do so, but the plain, hard fact is that many people are not in a position to buy their own house. Must my hon. Friend and I say to them "I am sorry, you will have to wait longer, so long perhaps that your children will spend all their childhood in conditions which no decent town and no decent country should tolerate."?
The Government's position is that there is no question of an absolute bar on the sale of council houses. It is not written on tablets of stone that council houses shall never be sold. The Government's policy is that council houses should be sold only when the waiting time has been reduced to a month or two.
That is certainly not the position in Luton. We have the worst housing problem in Bedfordshire, as the recent county 1913 structure plan consultative document showed. The council under Labour worked hard and valiantly to get to grips with this problem, but the council would be the first to say that the end of the tunnel is a very long way off.
For the new masters of the council to propose the sale of council houses is gravely mistaken. I appeal to the Minister to use whatever powers he has to dissuade them from this policy, which can only exacerbate a heart-rending problem. I hope that the message comes out loud and clear from the debate that the Government do not approve of the council's policy and that that message will dispel any mistaken ideas of Conservative leaders on Luton Council. General consent must not be taken as general approval.
As I understand it, the Government have said that they want a selective approach to this problem, taking into account the differences in each local situation. If this is so, the simple question is: what is the Government's attitude to the situation in Luton, where by no stretch of the imagination can it be said that the sale of council houses can be justified under the Government's criteria?
§ 1.36 a.m.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) has been fortunate to secure a second debate within four months on the housing situation in Luton, which underlines his concern and, indeed, the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson). I understand that his involvement in housing, one way or another, goes back over many years, and he has made a forceful speech tonight.
On the previous occasion, on 27th January, the particular aspects which both hon. Members raised were the Luton Borough Council's need for more housing land, its freedom to decide for itself the size of any increase in the rents of its houses, and the improvement and rehabilitation of the older and worse provided elements in the council's housing stock. My hon. Friend was particularly anxious about the outcome of the borough council's application to build about 300 houses on a site at Pastures 1914 Way. This proposal had been notified to the Department as a substantial departure from the development plan and was called in for decision by my right hon. Friend in view of objections raised by other parties.
I promised my hon. Friend at the time that we recognised the urgency of the matter, and, as he knows, a decision was announced shortly afterwards that the borough council's proposal should be allowed. In coming to that decision, we were deeply conscious of the council's difficulty in finding enough suitable land to provide for local housing needs, a difficulty which was eloquently and powerfully expounded by my hon. Friend in the debate.
Tonight my hon. Friends have raised a different and specific issue affecting Luton, namely, their concern at the implications for families and other people in need of housing in Luton if the Conservative group, now that the Conservatives are in a majority on the borough council, carry out its electoral promise to allow tenants of council houses to buy their homes. My hon. Friend has expressed his concern about the effect of sale of council houses in Luton in strong and emotive terms. It is an emotive subject, because people in desperate need of accommodation have every right to strong feelings.
I regret very much the sloganising on the issue by Tory spokesmen, including those at Luton. The Government's policy, however, is not based on emotion or on slogans. The Government's approach is, rather based on a rational and considered approach to the very difficult issues that selling council houses raise. Perhaps I ought to add that this issue has been blown up by the Opposition out of all proportion. Whatever is done about council house sales, the effect on those in real need will be very marginal indeed.
I shall come to those issues in a moment. But first there is a general point that ought to be made. During the recent local government election campaign, the Tories made it clear that if they were returned to office they would institute a policy of selling. However mistaken some of us may believe the local electorates to have been, the fact remains that they have, in several places, elected 1915 councils that are committed to reintroduce selling. I think that a Government who have shown their faith in local democracy would have to consider very carefully before thwarting the expressed wish of a local government electorate. That does not mean, however, that the Government do not have powers to regulate the sale of council houses and that we shall ignore our consequent responsibilities, which we, in turn, have been elected to carry out. The review of this matter, which is being carried out in parallel with the housing finance review, will certainly be addressed to this issue, among others.
The Government made clear their policy on sale of council houses in the Supply debate on Tuesday. It is the first duty of local housing authorities to ensure an adequate supply of rented accommodation. This, in our view, rules out the indiscriminate sale of rented houses regardless of local need. Whether or not the selling of council houses is right is a matter that must be determined, locality by locality, in the light of local housing needs and conditions as a whole and, in particular, in the light of the local unmet need for rented accommodation. Where there is an unmet need, we are clear that local authorities should give priority to meeting this need rather than selling existing rented stock.
My hon. Friend also referred to the granting of the so-called "discounts" on the sale of council houses. I know that many of my hon. Friends are dubious about this practice of granting these discounts. It has been suggested that they are, in fact, a subsidy to the particular people who purchase their house. The practice of granting such discounts was on that the Labour Government instituted in 1967. It helps to put tenants who purchase council houses on a par with sitting tenants in the private sector who have security of tenure.
Where local authority houses have been sold and discounts allowed, the practice has been to impose restrictions on resale. Now, it is a general principle that disposal of publicly-owned property should be at market value; and it was on the basis that such conditions have been held to have the effect of reducing market value that we allowed the practice in 1967.
1916 It may be that in Luton the better course would be to build for sale rather than sell the existing stock. As hon. Members may know, the granting of discounts so as to reduce the market value at which dwellings are sold is possible not only on the sale of existing stock but also with houses built specifically for sale. My Department would be glad to offer Luton Borough Council advice in the procedures and benefits of building for sale.
It is this kind of consideration that authorities ought to take into account in deciding their policy on sales and, indeed, on the terms on which they should sell, if they do. The Government will, therefore, be looking to Luton Borough Council to formulate its policy accordingly, as we would, indeed, all other authorities in the country.
My hon. Friend has argued that with a waiting list of around 4,000 it would be not just folly, but unjust and wrong for the council to reduce the stock of housing that it has available for letting by selling off some of those houses to existing tenants.
The background is that Luton has grown very fast. Its population has increased by about 26,000 in the last 15 years. It is still an area of considerable population and housing pressure. No doubt the housing list of 4,000 in Luton stems partly from this influx in population. It has to be set against between 500 and 600 houses becoming available each year for reletting. To bridge the gap, the previous council—and I congratulate it on this—embarked on a big increase in the building programme, which was scheduled to result in some 800 new dwellings being started this year and more than 600 next year. The previous council had set its face against selling off any of its houses and I believe that in the past seven years only 104 houses have been sold. Luton's total stock is 11,500 council houses. This is an indication of the conditions in the light of which the new council will have to make its decision on sales.
My hon. Friend asked a number of questions. They were good questions. Some of them I have already dealt with in detail. For the rest, there are general powers in the scabbard, but whether rattling them is the right approach to the situation we are discussing remains to be seen.
1917 We can be sure that the council will take note of what my hon. Friend has so eloquently said in the House. But, in any case, on assuming the mantle of office, the new majority group in Luton will have the benefit of the wider information and outlook which full access to official resources inevitably gives a majority group. We hope that the new Luton Borough Council will make the fullest use of the resources and will take a decision 1918 that is pragmatic rather than doctrinaire. The needs of the people of Luton should be their first priority.
I shall give detailed consideration to the points made by my hon. Friends and will be in touch with them if I think that any further advice will be helpful.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Two o'clock