HC Deb 14 February 1977 vol 926 cc223-32

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

1.6 a.m.

Mr. Hamish Gray (Ross and Cromarty)

I am very pleased to have this opportunity to raise the subject of housing improvement grants in the rural areas of Scotland.

This is one form of grant which provides a very good yield for local authorities. It ensures that the recipient, in return for a modest amount of grant aid, spends a substantial amount of his or her own money, modernising in the process a property which will improve the amenity of the locality, provide a substantially enhanced rateable value for the council, and, of course, greatly add to the life span of the house in question. In such circumstances, it is important that no property on which a proprietor is prepared to spend a substantial amount of money on genuine improvement should be excluded from grant-earning status purely because of the way in which certain of the guidelines have been framed.

During the course of my remarks, I shall try to make some constructive proposals for improving and amending the guidelines which are issued to local authorities and within which they must operate if they hope to receive Exchequer contribution on the grants which they award. At present it is my view that these guidelines do not always take into account the conversion problems which are frequently encountered during the alteration of single, semi-detached or small flatted houses so frequently found in our villages or small towns.

While present regulations may work well in urban areas with a high proportion of tenement properties, they reveal serious limitations when applied elsewhere. This has resulted in the past in certain of my constituents being deprived of grant aid when I consider that their applications certainly came within the spirit of the grant, but were refused on minor technicalities.

Ross and Cromarty District Council carried out a housing survey during 1976 and published its findings on 1st September. These showed that there existed some 2,300 houses which did not meet the tolerable standard. By way of enabling many of these houses to qualify for a grant, certain amendments should be made to the Scottish Development Department Circulars Nos. 29/1974 and 72/1975. The 29/74 Circular spells out the purpose of the grant as being to secure a significant and worthwhile improvement of the unsatisfactory housing stock of the country". That is a sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree, but regrettably certain of the guidelines frustrate this very aim.

The passage on enlargement or extension of houses then reads: In the normal course it is expected that a family will move to a larger house when it outgrows its present house. But in a rural district this is often impossible. Many houses in, for example, Wester Ross are principally croft houses which, by virtue of their basic design, are limited in their overall size and have poor accommodation on the upper floor. Furthermore, in many rural areas it is unlikely that there will be alternative private houses available, while to provide public sector housing would place yet a further burden on the housing authority. Many of the small houses in the rural parts of the Highlands have two ground floor rooms and two top rooms and are occupied by persons with young children. If these occupiers were to be deprived of grant to assist them to increase their accommodation in what must otherwise be satisfactory houses, the result would be an exodus from the area concerned. Most of these families live fairly close to their place of work, and to move some distance away would increase transport costs and create financial loss.

In the old fishing villages of Easter Ross we have examples of the traditional half house, where the fishermen not only had shares in the boat in which they sailed but often in the house in which they lived, so that frequently families of crew members shared the same accommodation. The result is that rooms of a house being occupied by different families has posed difficulties in determining eligibility for grant. Consequently, and taking into account fire regulations, it is usually necessary to extend the existing accommodation.

Another example of the inadequacy of the regulations can be found where the roof covering of an original cottage may have been of thatch, which has in the past normally been replaced by corrugated iron or asbestos. This necessitates the removal of a main element of the structure. Invariably, slappings have to be made in the walls in order to improve access or to provide larger windows, while the wall head may also require to be raised, and the subsequent extent of the work may lead to the argument that the overall alteration constitutes rebuilding and the house may not therefore be considered suitable for grant aid. Nevertheless, to refuse grant in such a case could preclude the improvement of these traditionally-built houses, on which people are prepared to spend a large amount of their own savings—thus maintaining their homes in an attractive state and up to tolerable standard. Further problems are encountered when properties lie within a conservation area.

I have had a great deal of correspondence with the Director of Environmental Health in Ross and Cromarty on this subject, and I have also met the subcommittee of the Environmental Health Committee in an effort to be constructive in proposals to improve the situation. I am grateful to the director and to the sub-committee for the co-operation and assistance which they have given to me.

Having considered all these matters, I should like to suggest the following amendments to the guidelines, and I hope that the Minister will be sufficiently flexible to accept these suggestions, which could very easily be implemented, while the resultant benefit would be welcome throughout the rural areas of Scotland.

First I suggest that a room should not be accepted as a sleeping apartment unless the ceiling height, if upstairs, is a minimum of two metres over not less than half the floor area and it has a window, that to attain the above standard the formation of a dormer window be accepted as a permissible extension, and that the removal of one pitch of the roof to allow such proposals be regarded as falling within the guidelines. Secondly, I believe that provision of a dormer window to contain a bathroom should be accepted as a permissible extension and that the removal of one pitch of the roof to allow such proposals should be regarded as falling within the guidelines. Thirdly, I suggest that extension to provide a kitchen, and for a bathroom should be permitted even if it could be contained within the existing house but by so doing would cause overcrowding. Fourthly, extension by one additional bedroom should be allowed where the local authority is satisfied that a need exists and that it would be unreasonable to expect the applicant to move house.

I am aware that it is possible to obtain larger grants for housing action areas, but there are practical difficulties in forming such areas within many rural areas, and certainly within the district of Ross and Cromarty. Furthermore, it is doubtful that the requirements of circular 69 of 1976 could be met in this regard. I refer in particular to the paragraphs that relate to tenants before 1914. I doubt that we have any of that category that could qualify. I therefore believe that the amendments which I have suggested form a more practical method of improving the situation, and I very much hope that the Minister will accept them.

As the Minister will be aware, there are several cases under consideration by the SDD for grant aid in Ross and Cromarty at this time. Special circumstances have been argued for these cases, and I hope that it will be possible to give Exchequer grant. In most of those cases, however, there would have been no necessity even to refer them for special consideration had the proposals that I now suggest been operative. The Ross and Cromarty District Council has recently changed its policy on these grants and it is now its intention to take the basic decision itself in many more cases than has been possible in the past, and to refer to the SDD those cases that come near the borderline or about which there is considerable doubt.

Having made these proposals, I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to accept them or at least give me an assurance that he will look at them carefully, because I genuinely believe that people living in my part of the country and in rural areas generally would benefit greatly from what I have suggested.

1.17 a.m.

Mr. Donald Stewart (Western Isles)

I thank the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) and the Minister for allowing me this brief incursion into the debate. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on instituting a debate on this matter.

In 1972 the convener of the Inverness-shire's landward health committee said that the housing stock standards in Barra and the Uists were "astounding". He said that 51 per cent. of the houses were below standard and 28 per cent. unfit for human habitation.

The last Administration introduced a scheme for 75 per cent. housing grants. It was introduced for a year and extended for a further year. I appreciate current financial difficulties, but I make a plea to the Minister to reinstitute that scheme for a year or possibly two years. The former Secretary of State—now Lord Campbell of Croy—said in introducing the scheme that it would help unemployment and improve the housing stock. Those needs still exist. Such a scheme would make a contribution towards savings since it now costs £20,000 to build a local authority house in the Outer Isles.

1.19 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown)

I shall certainly look at the specific points that have been raised by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and at the general remarks of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray). If anything needs to be looked into it will be, and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about it. I compliment the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty because I always feel that anybody who can be enthusias- tic on any subject in this place after 1 o'clock in the morning deserves to be congratulated. The hon. Gentleman has put his case with moderation—I hope that is not misunderstood outside—and courtesy and has been most constructive.

I do not know whether I can give him all the assurances that he seeks, but it might be helpful if I outline some of the background to our policy. We are dealing with a situation in which about 160,000 houses are estimated by local authorities in Scotland to be below the statutory tolerable standard. That is about one house in every 11 of the total housing stock and one in six of the private sector stock. Virtually all sub-standard houses are older properties in private ownership. This fact is confirmed by the survey that was conducted by the hon. Gentleman's authority and to which he referred.

The tolerable standard is a set of objective criteria laid down in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1974. The problem of unsatisfactory housing is a large one and it is in this context that the former Secretary of State said in the Scottish Grand Committee that the main purpose of the changes to the improvement schemes was to make them more selective and to ensure that assistance was concentrated on those houses most in need of improvement. Our policy is that grants should go to inadequate houses which fall below the tolerable standard or are otherwise deficient in amenities, with priority to areas where there are concentrations of unsatisfactory houses.

The 1974 Act enabled local authorities to define housing action areas for improvement where the majority of houses are below the tolerable standard or lacking reasonable bathroom facilities—a bath or shower and a wash basin. In these action areas the financial incentives are greater, with grant at the rate of 75 per cent., or higher in hardship cases, and with an absolute obligation on local authorities to grant-aid work needed to bring houses up to the standard specified for the area.

Outside the housing action areas, there is also an absolute obligation on authorities to give limited grants towards the provision of standard amenities—water closet, bath or shower, wash-hand basin —where these did not previously exist. It is the practice of most authorities to go for improvement grants rather than these standard grants, but there are opportunities of getting the standard amenities. Generally, grants are given at the discretion of local authorities. We have issued advice to authorities as to how they should use their discretion. Our advice is not absolutely binding on them. We do not expect rigid uniformity amongst the authorities in their attitudes to house improvers, and a council could here and there set aside our advice, but knowing that Exchequer contribution might not be paid towards the grants concerned.

The hon. Member has argued that we are too restrictive. How shall I summarise our advice to the authorities who administer the grant scheme? It is broadly that grant should go towards work on unsatisfactory houses, making good basic deficiencies. We encourage the giving of grants on such things as provision of damp courses, of adequate bathrooms and kitchens, and of effective hot water supplies. We advise against grant simply for provision of central heating or for replacement of fittings which, though old, are in themselves adequate.

We advise that grant should not normally go to extend or enlarge houses which are not in themselves unsatisfactory houses. This point was raised by the hon. Gentleman. It would be unreasonable to prevent an improvement that is an extension if there are limited opportunities for a family to grow and if—unlike in more populated areas—it would have no chance of finding another house. The provision is intended for exceptional circumstances where there is no alternative housing opportunity.

We also advise that improvement grant should not be given for work which comes close to building a new house. I agree that this is controversial. People who wish to build new houses are expected to supply their own finance and we see no reason why grant should be given out of public taxes and rates for work which is tantamount to rebuilding on the old foundations of a derelict building.

The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty is not alone in saying that we are a little restrictive in our advice. But I am sure that on reflection he will agree that a line must be drawn somewhere and that when a new house is being created out of old walls it does not come into the category of improvement in the sense about which we are talking.

We do not want to prevent people from making use of abandoned derelict buildings. We say that it should not be done at the public expense. Our emphasis is on improving existing, usable houses. That is the type of improvement which attracts grant, not the creation of a new house. We expect the local authority to offer grant for a house which is below the tolerable standard. But it is not our wish—especially in these times of financial stringency—that funds should be dissipated in supporting ambitious schemes which, because of their nature, go beyond the scope of house improvement.

I do not agree that it is unreasonable to expect Ross and Cromarty to work under the housing action area procedure. I should be more than willing to offer official advice and help if that authority wished to operate in that way. I say in the kindest manner that if the procedure can be operated in the Western Isles, it cannot be beyond the wit of Ross and Cromarty to do likewise.

Ross and Cromarty could do with encouragement. It could make a substantial contribution to the improvement of houses in the area. Ross and Cromarty, I am sorry to say, is one of the worst authorities in terms of the number of sub-tolerable houses, although its progress has been significant this year. I do not criticise that authority because it was left with this heritage by the old authorities.

I refute the contention that there are differences between the rural areas and the four cities where 60 per cent. of sub-tolerable houses are to be found. I know that the problem is different. There may be technical difficulties but the procedure is there if there are unique differences. In my experience Ross and Cromarty is a unique authority. Therefore, I do not think that it is true that there is any great problem in the rural areas that we have not managed to work out amicably with other authorities.

Mr. Gray

Is the Minister prepared to look at the suggestions that I have made? I am convinced that they would improve the situation.

Mr. Brown

I am coming to that matter.

As I say, the important thing about improvement, particulary in the housing action areas, is that the initiative really rests with the local authority. Perhaps the argument is that we are too restrictive, but I must make it quite clear that we have imposed no financial restriction, I am glad to say, on this sector of housing expenditure.

No authority, rural or otherwise, has yet been asked to restrict the amount of expenditure on improvement grants, so that is not the problem. In fact, in the current year, 1976–77, we expect local authorities to take on expenditure of about £9½ million. That is our estimate of what it might be. The central Government contribution to the funding of the borrowing involved in that is quite considerable. Therefore, we are making a generous financial contribution.

There is procedure for exceptions to be made. In the context of the guidelines, I should like to have a look at the hon. Gentleman's suggested amendments. I had better call them amendments 1 and 2. I think that there is a little misunderstanding here. I think that amendments 3 and 4 would be within the guidelines, but I note that the hon. Gentleman has had one or two cases about which the authority has not been happy, I am delighted to hear that the authority has at last seen the benefit of the advice that we have been giving to it. We want to give local authorities freedom, as long as they see their way to operating within the guidelines. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman consults other authorities, or other hon. Members, he will find that they agree that the system works reasonably well.

However, for some reason that escapes me Ross and Cromarty has been slightly difficult in seeing the benefit of working within the guidelines and referring only the very odd, exceptional case to us. It is not our intention to be the authority that should be giving approval for every grant—which is almost what Ross and Cromarty was suggesting at one time. I am glad to say that the advice that we have given to the authority and the talks that we have had with the authority have apparently borne fruit.

The hon. Gentleman said that we have given a modest amount of grant, and that as a general principle when people were spending or investing it was reasonable to be as generous as possible. The grant can be as much as £1,850. It is not an insignificant sum bearing in mind that after five years the person who invests it gets the total benefit of all that. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should not have some kind of guidelines under which to operate. I think that they are satisfactory and reasonable. Obviously, however, if there are specific cases that have disturbed the hon. Gentleman, I am always willing to look at them as sympathetically as possible.

This has been a very useful debate. Although I am not looking for work, I want to make one final point. We have no knowledge of any unique problems in the fishing villages or problems peculiar to them. There may be some doubt about who owns the title deeds of split houses, but we have no particular knowledge of such problems. It may be that some legal problem is involved. If the hon. Gentleman can throw any light on some of the problems that people have raised with him, I shall be delighted to look at that aspect in case there is something unusual about Ross and Cromarty of which I am not aware.

If I have overlooked other points, I shall read what has been said with great care. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty is a very active Member and I like to encourage him as often as possible. I shall see whether there is any way in which we can continue to improve the good relationship that I think we have with his authority.

Mr. Gray

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I am glad that he recognises and acknowledges that Ross and Cromarty is a unique constituency. I hope that it will receive unique treatment from the Scottish Office at all times.

Mr. Brown

I said that it was unique in some respects. I think that we have overcome that aspect and got it into line with the other authorities in Scotland. That is all that I need say at this stage. If I have overlooked anything, I shall certainly discuss it with both hon. Gentlemen who have raised this matter tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Two o'clock.