HC Deb 25 May 1977 vol 932 cc1501-18

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart):

I listened, as I am sure the whole House did, with great interest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to your understandably correct comments a few moments ago. I hope that when reporting to Mr. Speaker, you will also report that, as usual, the Scots have set an example to all other hon. Members in the House and, indeed, to the Ministers in the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern)

The hon. Gentleman has missed my point. He was ready to start speaking when no Minister was present. That is what I object to. No Minister from the Scottish Office was present. That is all I am objecting to.

Mr. Taylor

In case there may be any reflection on the Minister, I should like to record the fact that I did give him what I regard as due notice. He immediately agreed to come at short notice and to answer the debate.

I am particularly grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for agreeing to come to discuss a subject which we both agree is very important. It would be fair to record that a Scottish Member and, indeed, a Scottish Minister have shown yet again how such matters should be dealt with not only correctly but also with the maximum of courtesy. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for agreeing to my raising the subject. I am also grateful to the Minister and his colleagues in the Scottish Office for being present. I would point out how well the Scots do this kind of thing.

I want to raise the future of municipal housing in Scotland. This is an important subject because it affects the mobility of Scots. In Scotland less than one-third of the entire population live in owner-occupied dwellings. The latest official figure that I saw put the proportion at 32 per cent. That is about the lowest figure in Europe and it is lower than two countries behind the Iron Curtain. The latest figure I have seen for Czechoslovakia put owner-occupation there at 50 per cent. In Yugoslavia it is 47 or 48 per cent. Scotland's figure, therefore, is particularly low, and that makes it important for the Government to consider changing their policy.

There is a case for council houses and houses owned by public authorities to be offered for sale to sitting tenants. At its recent conference in Perth my party made it clear that when it came back to power it would oblige local councils to offer houses for sale at a substantial discount to sitting tenants.

The Minister cannot complain that I have not given him sufficient notice for the debate. On 23rd March I gave notice at Question Time that I would seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment. The Minister has therefore had two months in which to prepare himself. On that occasion I was asking him how many houses had been sold to sitting tenants in Scotland. The figures were dramatic. He said, as reported at column 1259 of that date, that sales of council houses to sitting tenants completed in Scotland were, for 1972, 645; 1973, 744; 1974, 171; 1975, 30; and 1976, an estimate of 80.

We can see, therefore, that there has been a sharp reduction. Councils have been less willing to offer houses to sitting tenants because they are largely aware of the answer they will get from the Scottish Office. I hope that tonight the Minister will do two things. First, I hope that he will make clear that the Government will change direction on the sale of council houses and that they will give positive encouragement to local authorities to proceed in this direction. Secondly, I hope that we shall have an assurance that the new Conservative-controlled local authorities—more than half the population of Scotland has the advantage of living in an area with a Conservative-controlled authority—will not be frustrated in their endeavours in this respect.

There is a sound argument for houses to be sold to sitting tenants. That would improve the mobility of labour—which is desperately important in a country which is undergoing structural change in its industry. There is no point in having houses in one part of the country and jobs in another. We know from our constituencies that there are many people who would like to move house in order to obtain a job elsewhere but who cannot do so because they live in council houses and cannot get a transfer.

There is the tragic case of the person who wants to move in order to be near relatives—perhaps people of 80 or 85 years of age—who need constant attention. Owner-occupation does not mean that mobility can be given effect at a moment's notice, but it certainly makes moving easier.

I believe that many young couples, and particularly young mothers, go through a great deal of emotional stress because they cannot call on the support of an extended family. At Question Time today we heard about the Minister of State's mother-in-law. My mother-in-law lives just round the corner from us in Cathcart, and my mother lives just up the road. We therefore had the support of an extended family. If my wife wants to come to the House to hear a ministerial announcement, she knows that she has someone to come and baby-sit. The advantage of having relatives nearby makes life tolerable for many young couples. Many of the young mothers in some of the vast housing developments are taking pills because they do not have that benefit and suffer from emotional problems as a result.

There is another consideration which must be borne in mind. If a tenant improves his property by spending money to make the house more agreeable, he gets no credit for that. If the Minister spent £300 or £400 improving a council house of which he was a tenant, and if he then obtained a transfer or if he died and the house went to someone else, he would get no credit for that expenditure. If, through the efforts of residents and tenants, the value of houses in an area rises, the community understandably is entitled to a greater return on the sale price of the house. That increase is not available to the council tenant.

Another important reason why we should offer houses for sale to sitting tenants is that this would probably be the only chance these people would have of buying their own homes. At one time it was easy to move into owner-occupation by buying a flat in a city centre for £600 or £700. This happened in Dennistown or Battlefield in Glasgow. However, house prices there have since rocketed. Unless council tenants get the chance of buying their own homes with a substantial mortgage and a discount, they will never become owner-occupiers.

Council tenants have been deprived of an advantage that owner-occupiers get, and that is the increase in property values. Property values have kept pace with inflation so that many tenants who have saved up to buy their own homes find house prices leaving them behind and see their chances of becoming owner-occupiers gradually diminishing. In those circumstances, there is a clear case for offering the houses to sitting tenants. If we do not do that, council tenants in Scotland face the prospect of paying more in rents and rates and of having nothing to show for it at the end of the day.

Some irresponsible Members of the Labour Party have made life more difficult in the council areas by exploiting the rents issue for political purposes. I have before me a document entitled "Labour News" which advised people to support a gentleman called Lambie who has subsequently become the Member of Parliament for Central Ayrshire. This was a dramatic pamphlet which said: Yes, we have the lowest rents in Scotland—and were proud of it! It goes on For twelve years local Tories have echoed the demand of successive Tory Secretaries of State for higher rents for council houses. And for twelve years the Labour-controlled Saltcoats Town Council have defied them. It continues The average rent in Saltcoats is 9s. a week—the lowest of any small burgh in Scotland…Now that we have a Labour Secretary of State we are looking forward with confidence to a new rents policy. New lower rates of interest on money borrowed for house building are expected. So, too, are higher subsidies. Those were the days when there were irresponsible Labour politicians who sought to exploit the situation for political purpose. Since then the situation has changed. We now have a Labour Government, and the Minister, like previous Ministers, has been telling local authorities that they simply must try to get their housing accounts more in balance. In this changed situation, I hope that the Minister will look on this matter objectively and from the point of view of the interests of the tenants.

What are the arguments against the sale of council houses to tenants? Some people say that the tenants do not want to buy. I pay tribute here to ex-Councillor Dick Dynes, who was unseated at the local government election. He was a member of the Labour group on Glasgow City Council who took the view that the council should sell council houses to sitting tenants. He was very brave in putting forward that view, which was not universally popular in the Glasgow Labour Party.

Mr. Dynes' committee authorised a survey asking council tenants what their views were on this subject. The poll showed two things clearly. First, the majority of council tenants thought that houses should be offered for sale to sitting tenants. There was no doubt about that result. A smaller proportion, only about 20 per cent., said that they would be interested in buying their own homes. The reasons were that they did not want to buy that particular house or were not interested in buying one in their area, but there is no doubt that the majority of council tenants would like this right to be available to them and to other tenement dwellers and council house dwellers. There is little doubt that the majority would like this facility to be available. This would be a way of extending the rights of council tenants.

The second problem is a more basic: the fear is that if we go ahead with a policy of offering every council house for sale, we might in certain circumstances make the housing position worse instead of better. Obviously, in a city area we might succeed in [...]lling houses only in what could be classified as the popular or nice areas, with the danger that we should make it more difficult to achieve a social balance in the areas which remained.

If the Minister accepts my proposal, I hope that he will insist that there shall be a fair assessment of the realistic market value of each house, and a discount from that. If such a policy were brought forward, it would be more than likely that in the less popular areas council tenants would find themselves paying less for their houses than they pay in rent. The strongest weapon for ensuring that not just houses in the good areas were sold would be to fix realistic market values, which would mean that the houses of tenants living in the more difficult areas would be better bargains. Such a policy would be one of the best ways of solving the problem as long as those areas continued to exist.

Such a policy would be good for the ratepayers. I believe that the latest published figures showed that the average council house in Scotland costs the ratepayer and taxpayer about £204 a year, or about £4 a week, averaging everything across the board. That is far less than it used to be, but I understand that that is the figure. This cost would be reduced if we encouraged the sale of council houses.

Second, it would be good for the tenants. It would give them more mobility and give them an opportunity of benefiting from improvemets that they make to their own properties. It would also give them more mobility to move nearer to their work or nearer to relatives. As the Minister must know, it would also encourage better use of the housing stock. In many areas there is the problem of having two or three people living in a five-apartment house, or perhaps one person living in a three-apartment house. Such people would like to move but cannot because of the difficulties with transfer arrangements: If more houses were sold people would tend to move much more readily to smaller houses. If people are in a four-apartment council house in a nice area they will not want to move out to live in a one- or two-apartment house unless they are offered one in an area in which they would like to live.

It would be excellent also to encourage greater social mobility in city areas. One of the things that worries me and also worries educationists is that when comprehensive education is imposed on a structured city which has large areas of council houses, large areas of owner-occupied houses and largely privately rented areas, there is the danger that we do not encourage the social mobility which is essential.

I come to the problems of Glasgow. The Conservative administration, which is a minority administration, has, I understand, made clear this afternoon that it wishes to offer council tenants in Glasgow the right to buy their own homes. I understand that the details of the scheme are not yet published. I gather also—I speak here subject to correction—that this afternoon the Labour group made clear that it was not happy with the Conservatives' scheme. Therefore, full responsibility for deciding whether tenants in Glasgow will have the right to buy their own homes rests fairly and squarely on Scottish National Party councillors who hold the balance in Glasgow. Various views have been expressed about the Scottish National Party and its policies, and I am afraid that on many occasions we have found that on a clear-cut issue of this sort the SNP is never keen to say either "Yes" or "No".

I think that much of the support which the Scottish National Party has had—particularly the protest vote support—has come simply because, when a difficult problem arises on which an answer has to be given, members of the SNP tend to avoid the issue and to say nothing. The Scottish National Party is now on trial in Glasgow. As you realise full well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are issues on which a "Yes" or a "No" has from time to time to be given. Questions cannot be avoided for ever.

In Glasgow now, there is one specific issue which affects more than half the people of that city. There are arguments in favour and arguments against it, but if the SNP does not want to express a view on this direct issue, it will be condemned as irresponsible by the people of Glasgow and, what is more, it will be participating in depriving tenants of a right which would benefit the city as a whole. I regard it as obligatory now on the SNP to say whether it supports the scheme for selling council houses to sitting tenants. I hope that its members will have the guts to give a clear "Yes" or "No", and to give their reasons.

That is only one aspect of municipal accommodation in Scotland, and I am sorry to have spent a little longer than I had intended on the sale of council houses. There are several other issues to be raised. The Minister was rather unkind on the last occasion when we had Scottish Questions and I put to him the possibility of further thought about house allocation. He will be aware that, unfortunately, there are areas where, rightly or wrongly, there is always suspicion about house allocations. I believe that the recent events in Glasgow inevitably added to the fears which people have about house allocation. In my opinion, the view which has been taken by both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, and, I understand the nationalists, on this issue is right, namely, that there should be full disclosure of what appears to be the very small number of cases in which irregularities take place.

On the other hand, I believe that there may be merit in the Minister being willing to authorise a unit of the Scottish Development Department to go round on a regular basis, perhaps every two or three years, to review and report publicly on the house allocation and transfer schemes of every district council. Without doubt, local authorities could learn a great deal from one another, and many local authorities could gain a great deal from advice from the Scottish Development Department on how their allocation or transfer schemes are working.

We know that local authorities tend to bring out one allocation system and then another. It would be helpful if the Scottish Development Department could make such an examination of allocation and transfer schemes and then issue a public report saying whether, in its view, this or that scheme was sound. Moreover, it could in a wider sense help to improve the general housing scene in Scotland.

It is absolutely crucial to make greater provision for the transfer of council tenants from one area to another. There is the exchange scheme which operated, and I believe still operates, in Paisley for tenants who wish to move from one area to another. But few tenants have benefited from it. We must make greater provision in that direction.

I hope that the Minister will have discussions with his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Security to see whether we could go further towards encouraging the direct payment of rent and rates for those on long-term benefit. There is no doubt that in some of the larger schemes, tenants who do not have joint stock bank accounts have difficulty in budgeting. They get money weekly, but they have to pay rent monthly. I understand that in some cases it can be done weekly. They have to pay electricity bills every two months and telephone bills every quarter. That is difficult to arrange if one does not have a bank account and has to depend on money coming in weekly.

I am convinced that many cases of evictions and family break-ups have been avoided where it has been possible to arrange for the direct payment of rent to be authorised for families on long-term benefit. I hope that the Minister will agree to have discussions with the DHSS about that matter. I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) would agree about that matter, because he has taken a great interest in it.

I should like the Minister to give some indication of his thoughts on improving housing management. There is no doubt that housing management is a very difficult job. On the other hand, we have not paid sufficient attention or given enough status to those who have this difficult job of managing housing areas. There is an argument for looking at qualifications for housing management and ways of attracting people with somewhat higher qualifications into this difficult area.

Whenever I phone local authorities these days—I am sure that the hon. Member for Maryhill has the same experience—I am often told that the person I want is away on a course or at a conference. On the other hand, those engaged in housing management are usually available because they are busy people with a big job to do. We seem to judge the status of staff in local authorities on the number of conferences or courses which they have attended. Housing management staff are so busy that they do not get away as often as others. I think that there should be greater emphasis on training and on getting people to attend conferences on housing management. In that way we can improve the qualifications and quality of housing management staff.

I must not go on too long, as other hon. Members are waiting to speak. However, I should like the Minister's views on anti-social tenants. This is an emotive issue, as we know from our talks in the past about areas such as Ferguslie Park. The Minister knows that if action is not taken ghettos tend to be self-creating and certain areas get bad names.

Vandalism is a particularly serious problem in many municipal housing areas. It is a problem everywhere, but particularly in certain housing areas. Crimes of violence also tend to be increasing.

There is a need for the Minister to have some sharp words with his hon. Friend who shares with him the job of Under-Secretary of State for Scotland about these matters if he is not prepared to accept some of the excellent proposals put forward by the Conservative Party at its recent Perth conference. Has the Minister any new plans to try to cope with the serious problems of vandalism and violence in some of these areas? Such problems make life difficult for the vast majority of law-abiding tenants.

I hope that I have given the Under-Secretary sufficient time and opportunity to say something about these important issues. I think that he will agree that, irrespective of what the problems are, the authorisation of the sale of council houses to sitting tenants would improve the situation immensely. It would give council tenants more rights than they have now and would be of great benefit.

The Minister has often given the impression that the Conservative Party is not favourably inclined towards council tenants, but that is not so. On the other hand, some people have given the impression that council tenants are in some ways a favoured group in our community. I believe that there are strong arguments indicating that in many respects they have had a raw deal. If we were to authorise the sale of council houses to sitting tenants, they would have more rights than they have now and the finances of local authorities would be improved.

The Under-Secretary and his fellow Ministers are constantly getting deputations from local authorities asking for more money and extra borrowing powers. The sale of council houses to sitting tenants would help to reduce the debts and the amount of interest that local authorities have to pay.

I want to end with a final quotation from this astonishing pamphlet, "Labour News", which advises people to vote Labour because: Under a Tory Government, increased rents meant more money for the money lenders". I am sure that even the Minister would not accept that point of view because the Government have been encouraging local authorities to put up rents in exactly the same way as the Labour Party has alleged that other parties have done.

We want to talk about serious issues in a serious way. I hope that the Minister will give some indication of his thoughts on these points and that he will be able to deal with them all seriously.

8.36 p.m.

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

I am sorry I was not present when the points of order were being raised, but it was through no lack of courtesy on the part of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). I knew that the hon. Gentleman was raising this matter and I had agreed to reply, but I had understood that two other Adjournments debates would be heard first.

I am more than willing—and, indeed, I am in the proces of offering—to meet representatives of Glasgow District Council in the near future to discuss with that Conservative administration—although do not ask me what that administration might be in a fortnight or three weeks' time—the general housing problems and to find out whether I can be helpful in any way. That, indeed, will be the purpose of the meeting.

The council may decide to discuss with me ways in which the Government can help in any inquiry that may be held into housing allocation in Glasgow, as well as in the areas of other local authorities. The hon. Member for Cathcart got carried away at the Conservative Party Conference and he promised that if he became Secretary of State he would set up a special unit in the Scottish Office to carry out that job. However, it would be most unfortunate to do that at a time when we are trying to devolve power and responsibility.

That it would be so even if a Scottish Assembly had been set up, because it would be intolerable for any central authority to be looking over the shoulders of properly elected public representatives given the job of carrying out housing allocations. I have offered to meet Glasgow Council to discuss broad housing policies along the fines that the hon. Member for Cathcart has indicated-Glasgow Council may wish to discuss with me the ways in which the Government could help—for example, by supplying the use of Government offices for an independent public inquiry.

It is my impression from what appeared in the Press this morning about what Councillor Mason said yesterday that the responsibilities of office are beginning to dawn on Councillor Mason and he is beginning to realise that governing is not just a matter of making public declarations. The councillor seems to be happy with a tripartite gathering on the housing committee, even though it does not include the Liberals. That committee is more than capable of carrying out any examination that may be necessary.

Mr. J. M. Craigen (Glasgow, Maryhill)

I did not hear the beginning of the speech by the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), but may I intervene while the Minister is dealing with the relationship between central Government and local housing authorities? Does the Minister accept that there is now a sizeable number of officials attached to the Scottish Office dealing with social work and that some of those officials deploy their expertise entirely in dealing with housing management?

Mr. Brown

I could not agree more and I shall come to that when I deal with what was said about housing management by the hon. Member for Cathcart.

I also acknowledge the fact that although there is a small attendance here tonight—and I am glad to see here my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen)—we do not discuss housing often enough. I welcome this opportunity of replying to the debate. The hon. Member for Cathcart has fairly raised some specific points to which I should like to reply.

On the contentious issue of the sale of council houses, I must repeat what I said earlier today. My party and I are not against the sale of council houses in certain circumstances. That is the policy of the Government, although I recognise that there are slight differences of opinion in the Labour Party outside the House. In Glasgow the previous administration, led by Dick Dynes and his colleagues, went a long way towards if not getting decisions, at least opening up a discussion on housing matters. Dick Dynes deserved much more support from the electorate than he received.

There will be a Green Paper for England and Wales and another for Scotland. I am sorry that no SNP Member is here, but no doubt the hon. Member for Cathcart will agree that there are different problems in Scotland and that, within the broad framework of public expenditure commitments, we have to find Scottish solutions to Scottish problems. The Green Paper will provide an opportunity for discussion of the sale of council houses.

I am proud to say that the housing authorities in Scotland agreed before the recent elections to take certain action at the Government's request. They have agreed to draw up housing plans based on the requirements of individual authorities and to produce detailed plans for their own area.

However controversial it was in other respects, the reform of local government was good for housing. There are now only 50 or so housing authorities instead of 234, and we are expecting the housing authorities with bigger areas and more resources to produce housing plans and ways of solving the housing problems in their areas on the basis of what they see as the priorities. Whether the authority is Banff and Buchan or Glasgow, if it comes up with propositions that include the sale of council houses, we shall look at them sympathetically. If they are based on what local people want and what elected councils are proposing, they have every right to be considered constructively.

There will be changes in subsidy arrangements to equalise the burdens on housing authorities more fairly. Since we have asked for a comprehensive approach to housing and asked local authorities to look at the needs of owner-occupation, privately rented accommodation, housing associations, the need to encourage tenants' co-operatives and whether there should be improvements in the tenant landlord relationship in the public sector, I can hardly complain if some come forward with realistic schemes that may include the sale of council houses.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

Will the hon. Gentleman consider sending a circular to local authorities, perhaps after the Green Paper has been issued, setting out the circumstances in which the sale of council houses might be approved by his Department? Many councils have told me that they have not submitted applications because they do not think that they would be approved.

Mr. Brown

That would be premature. We have asked housing authorities to prepare plans. I recognise that with the change in power and control in some areas this might occasion delay. We originally asked for the plans to be in by July this year. The Green Paper is expected to be published towards the end of next month.

The Green Paper deals with matters other than the selling of council houses. The housing authorities have an opportunity to put forward their schemes. If Glasgow said that it was going to sell every house in Castlemilk, Easterhouse and Drumchapel, we should tell it to think again. But if it were to suggest selling houses in Myrtle Park, that would be a different matter, although it would affect people who wished to transfer to a good area.

I do not approach this matter in an ideological and doctrinaire manner. Local authorities are free to put forward plans. I believe that the Monklands District Council and possibly the Clydebank area have the highest percentage of publicly owned houses in Scotland. If they said that they wanted to submit a scheme to increase owner-occupation, that fact would be taken into account. I give the House that assurance.

The hon. Member for Cathcart said that the Tory-controlled councils fought the elections on the sale of council houses. That is not right. It was certainly not an issue in the Provan constituency.

The hon. Member also discussed building up neighbourhoods. I agree about the importance of that. It is admirable for married sons and daughters to live in the same area as their parents or grandparents and it is equally important for a mother-in-law to live with the family where that is possible. However, that does not necessitate the selling of council houses. Good housing management policy can achieve the same result.

The Glasgow surveys proved that council tenants who said that they were in favour of the sale of council houses did not necessarily want to buy the houses in which they lived. The sale of council houses or, indeed, the purchase of a house—council or otherwise—is equated in the minds of many with moving and a freedom of choice. When a tenant in Easterhouse is asked whether he would like to buy a house his reaction is to say "Marvellous". He thinks that he would lige to buy a house in Knights-wood or Mosspark. The surveys have not been done in sufficient depth. Although I appreciate the work involved, the surveys are only a superficial examination of why people say that they would like to buy a house.

I concede immediately that the great advantage of owner-occupation is mobility. If there is a tragedy and it means that someone has to reduce his commitments, that can be done more easily and more readily within the framework of owner-ocupation. If, on the other hand, there is need for a change of job or, indeed, the need to get a job, in spite of the efforts made by the SSHA and some co-operative local authorities, again I admit that, by and large, there is greater mobility in owner-occupation.

The tragedy of it is that in many of the working-class areas there is a failure to appreciate that people are not necessarily getting the best deal out of a subsidised rented system. That depresses me. They do not appreciate or they do not know the tremendous tax advantages that people in owner-occupation in certain circumstances can obtain. A process of education so required for ordinary people who, in certain circumstances, are not getting a good deal simply because they are scared, or reluctant, or just do not know how to operate the system to their best advantage.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned three other matters: housing management and, linked with that, direct payment of rent and anti-social tenants. We have had discussions with the DHSS about direct payment of rent. My experience is that that Department is extremely co-operative. If there is a need for direct payment or a recommendation from a social work department or, indeed, from the Department's own information about rent arrears conveyed to it by housing managements, that Department is usually more than willing to put people on direct payment.

I do not see this arrangement as a panacea. There are far too many people in modern society who are willing to opt out of their personal responsibilities if they can get away with it. Therefore, while I am 100 per cent. in favour of helping families who are inadequate or who have pressing problems, I am still 100 per cent. convinced that we should not just throw this matter open and allow people to say "Let someone else take care of the rent. We shall not worry."

The hon. Gentleman knows that this is a difficult matter to define. I believe that it can be done only on the basis of looking at each individual case. Nevertheless, in general terms there is no difficulty about getting the co-operation of the DHSS.

Anti-social tenants are a vexed problem. I see this problem being reduced through sound housing management policies. I cannot stress that strongly enough. The recent report of the housing advisory committee highlighted the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill about the lack of professional qualifications among staff in housing management. Indeed, the Scottish Office has nothing to boast about in that respect, because we have one full-time professional with housing management qualifications and in the social work services group I think that there are about 30 or 40 people with social work qualifications.

That is all wrong. We shall not get a reduction in vandalism and in anti-social behaviour, or in glue-sniffing or in all the other social problems that afflict people—many of them in the large housing estates—simply by the injection of more money, and we shall not get improvements simply by the injection of more teachers or, indeed, more social workers, however desirable that may be. We can get such an improvement in housing only by better housing management policies.

The first step in getting a community to accept greater responsibility is for the people to become involved in their own affairs. This can be done through tenants' co-operatives, perhaps, or in some other way.

Let me put it even more crudely. If I had £5,000 to spend in a housing scheme, I would spend it by appointing an organiser for the local tenants' or residents' association. That would be my priority. Of course, such people can become political and anti-authority. But if we cannot get local people to respond, which would be the purpose of the exercise, to do that person out of his own job after having been in it for a short period during which he has stimulated community interest and a greater sense of individual responsibility—and my contention is that we shall not get that merely with expensive schemes of modernisation, environmental measures and social workers going in—perhaps we should all chuck it.

I am quite clear about my priority. It is an improved housing management system that will encourage greater responsibility and interest, not the sale of council houses. It will be hard going for those who concern themselves with their own environment. They must ask themselves "What can I do to help?" rather than "When are they going to do something for me?".

That sums up my philosophy and the philosophy of my party in response to the many interesting and fundamental issues raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Nine o'clock.