HC Deb 21 April 1983 vol 41 cc508-14

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

10.9 pm

Mr. John Heddle (Lichfield and Tamworth)

I am particularly grateful for this opportunity to discuss with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State a subject that is close to the hearts of many of our constituents, particularly those seeking the right to rent a home—the management of empty local authority houses under the rate support grant system.

I have no doubt at all that when my hon. Friend and I attend our weekly advice bureaux tomorrow evening and on Saturday morning several of our constituents will wish to discuss housing matters with us. Some will wish to discuss the right to buy; some will wish to discuss shared ownership; some will wish to discuss the half and half scheme; the improvement for sale scheme; homesteading; and the various other initiatives that the Government have introduced since 3 May 1979.

Others will wish to discuss the national mobility scheme and the tenants transfer scheme. Others will wish to discuss repairs that they consider to be long overdue. A significant number will comprise people who have been on their local authority's housing waiting list for a considerable time and who, in their wisdom, cannot for the life of them understand why the council—whether it be the Lichfield district council, the Tamworth borough council, or the local authorities operating within the constituency that my hon. Friend so assiduously nurses —will not give them the key to a home that has been left empty for so long.

It is to the scandal of empty homes that I wish to draw my hon. Friend's attention this evening. According to the annual housing and investment strategy programme for 1982–83, local authorities in England estimated that on 1 April 1981 there were some 97,000 local authority homes which had been lying vacant — wasted, unused, unoccupied—for 12 months or more. On 1 April 1982 that figure had increased to some 100,000 houses. Some —examples of which I know that my hon. Friend will already be aware of—believe it or not, have been left to the ravages of weather and vandals for an unbelievable period of five, 10, 15 or 20 years.

Some of the evidence—I shall not detail it to the House—can be gleaned from an excellent publication entitled "Homes Wasted" by a Mr. Anthony Fletcher. It reveals that in Manchester, not too far from the constituency of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), at 15 Ladybound lane, a house that is owned by the local authority had been kept vacant for an unbelievable period of 12 years. At 7 and 15 Florence road, London SE14, in the London borough of Lewisham, two properties were bought by the Inner London Education Authority in 1971 for a proposed school extension. No. 7 Florence road has been left vacant for 11 years and No. 15 Florence road has been left vacant for eight years. They were not passed on to the GLC to be used for temporary housing and requests that they be used for short or medium-term lets were refused. Those houses remain unoccupied to this day.

In Tamworth in my constituency, at Glascote road within one mile of the town centre 50 properties were bought by the Tamworth borough council 10 years ago for the proposed road improvement scheme known as the B5000. Those houses cost the local authority — the ratepayer and the taxpayer—some £350,000. They are now bricked up, derelict, vacant; crying out to be used by families who rightly deserve the right to rent.

How can this situation exist? I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with me that, to people without a home, an empty house is an outrage, particularly if it is owned by a public body that should have let it or used it beneficially in some way. To them, to my hon. Friend's constituents and to mine, this is a scandal. It is a scandal, too, for the taxpayer and the ratepayer who has to pay for this neglect.

The loss of revenue from local authority dwellings amounts to about £35 million a year. The cost of maintaining empty houses is a drain on the public purse; and the cost of boarding up these empty houses, to keep the vandals and the weather at bay, is about £500 to £1,000 a house. It has been known for up to £6,000 of ratepayers and taxpayers money to be spent to rehabilitate some of these properties after vandalism has occurred.

The deterioration of publicly financed assets, the large rent and rate losses, the potential for increased vandalism and theft and the intolerable nuisance caused to law abiding neighbours, are symptoms that highlight the need to keep the number of empty houses to an absolute minimum. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with that.

I understand that about 300 local authorities keep the number of their void houses at a low level—under 2 per cent. With them, I have no quarrel at all. Those are prudent local authorities controlled by both main political parties, but it is to more than 50 local authorities, the majority of which, sad though it is to relate to the House, are controlled by the Labour party, which is not represented here tonight, that I am directing my remarks. Keys are transferred from one department to another; they are transferred from in-tray to out-tray and from out-tray to tea-tray. In short, these much needed homes are left empty because of muddle, delay, inertia, secrecy and inefficiency—characteristics that often abound in large bureaucracies.

It will be remembered that, until a year or two ago, many local authorities, statutory undertakings and public bodies had no idea of how much land they owned. The initiative taken by my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Department of the Environment in establishing land registers has now brought that imprudence to an end. Vacant land and publicly owned assets are now quite rightly brought under the close scrutiny of the Department of the Environment. How many local authorities have no adequate identification and record system to identify the houses that they own? I submit that, frequently, public authorities, local authorities, statutory undertakings, the Inner London Education Authority, British Rail, and so on, do not even keep adequate records of their properties. At any one time they do not know whether their properties are empty or occupied. They do not know what their short-term or long-term plans may be. It is known that properties literally disappear in the administrative sense. One has only to read Homes Wasted to see that.

I therefore propose to my hon. Friend four points that are designed to bring the efficiency of local council housing departments under closer scrutiny. First, I believe that every local authority should be required to submit a six-monthly return to the Department of the Environment, identifying the houses within its ownership which have been empty for more than six months and the specific reasons why that council has left those properties empty.

Secondly, the Department should publish statistics concerning empty houses throughout the country obtained from the annual HIP — the housing investment programme returns from local authorities—so that we, as the guardians of the public purse, can identify the culprits of this imprudence.

Thirdly, the Government should place on local authorities and other public bodies a duty to consider shorthold schemes and temporary lettings for all their empty houses which are not let to tenants on housing waiting lists, and to transfer applicants under the national mobility scheme and tenants transfer scheme.

Fourthly, in respect of houses awaiting modernisation and repair—the reason which local authorities give for the majority of houses being left empty for more than six months is that they are awaiting repair, modernisation or improvement—rather than the local authority procrastinating any longer with those houses, it should offer those homes awaiting repair and modernisation to tenants on waiting lists in their existing state on a sort of homesteading for rental basis.

My constituency experience leads me to believe that I may not be far wrong in saying that eight out of 10 families on waiting lists are do-it-yourself experts, just as capable of modernising, improving, rewiring and re-decorating those homes as the council's direct labour organisation would be. Local authorities should invite those applicants to carry out the repairs themselves, perhaps in exchange for a rent-free period, or even provide those eager, anxious families who want the right to rent with the materials to carry out their own repairs, and in exchange for those materials allow them to refurbish the house at a reduced rent for a negotiated period. The advantages to the local authority and those on housing waiting lists—my hon. Friend's constituents and mine—are obvious for all to see.

Local authorities, not unreasonably, resent interference from Whitehall. Those councils which manage their housing stock efficiently and prudently will have nothing to fear from the proposals I am putting to the House tonight. This scheme is directed only at those councils which sit idly by while houses are left to deteriorate and the hopes of families on waiting list become daily more forlorn.

The priority estates project launched by my hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues in December 1979 has, without doubt, helped local authorities to tackle the serious problem of difficult to let estates, which affect about one quarter of a million households. But the proposals I am making would significantly reduce the number of not difficult to let estates but individual houses which have not yet attracted a tenant and would help to break down the old attitude that the council knows best. It would also help to break down the intransigent bureaucracies whose attitudes in the past have prevented homes from being created.

The Government have taken several encouraging steps in their four years in office to encourage private owners to bring vacant property back into use. There has been the introduction of the shorthold scheme in the Housing Act 1980 and the removal of disincentives from people temporarily absent, perhaps on active service overseas or in the Foreign and Commonwealth Service, to let their homes. We have had the encouragement of the North Wiltshire scheme, as it is commonly known, under which local authorities can lease privately rented accommodation for a brief period with a guaranteed right of possession to the owner at the end of that period. There has been the significant and generous contribution made through the department by the Government of improvement, repair and intermediate grants and so on, and the flexibility given to local authorities to guarantee mortgages provided by building societies for lending on older dwellings.

The four suggestions I have made tonight — in particular, the homesteading for rental scheme— must command the respect of even the most critical political scrutineer. Those proposals would significantly help the thousands of families on housing waiting lists who, for one reason or another, cannot and probably for reasons best known to themselves will not ever be able to afford to buy. They rightly deserve the right to rent. I believe that my proposals would give them that right.

10.24 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw)

It is customary for my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) to raise relevant issues from his fund of knowledge and with his expertise to put them across. Tonight is no exception. We have, rightly, had the opportunity to hear from him about the problem of void properties, far too many of which are on the books of housing authorities.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the clarity with which he has not only presented the case which is documented—though I take his point not sufficiently for his case—but has offered, as is relatively unusual in an Adjournment debate, some positive suggestions on how the situation might be improved. I assure him that his four points will be drawn to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction as matters upon which he would no doubt wish to comment to my hon. Friend in writing in due course.

We have from time to time been able to make the statistics available to the House. I know that details of the authorities with the worst records have already been published.

My hon. Friend will recognise also that in the Housing Act 1980 there are provisions to assist short-term lettings of vacant dwellings. Housing authorities would do well to bear in mind that they have the power to deal with vacant dwellings without creating secure tenancies an offer of employment in the authority's area and want temporary accommodation—which have complained bitterly of the inadequacies of central support for their housing programmes would be wise to recall that they have the power under the 1980 Act to deal with some of those who are most in need of accommodation.

My hon. Friend rightly raised the subject in the round as well as making suggestions for improvement. I am grateful to him for doing so. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has highlighted the problem of empty local authority dwellings. He started his campaign in a speech that he made in December 1980. He referred to the huge rent and rate losses involved and to the many steps that local authorities can take to bring empty dwellings back into use. An empty dwelling owned by a local authority is, in fact, a sin of omission. There can be no other way of putting it, because there are now plenty of resources available for the improvement of stock and for the sale of assests and to allow those assets to be ploughed back into the housing stock. There is little excuse for ignoring the prospect of bringing empty dwellings into sensible use.

Ministers have raised the matter at a number of conferences attended by local authority members and council officers under the auspices of such bodies as the Institute of Housing, the Housing Centre Trust and the National Housing and Town Planning Council.

First, I should mention the source from which the Government draw information about empty properties. Local authorities are required to complete forms provided by my Department for the purpose of their annual housing strategy and investment programme. This is the basis of the HIP scheme to which my hon. Friend referred.

In their most recent returns, local authorities in England estimated that in April 1982 there were 100,000 empty local authority dwellings, of which 19,000 had been empty for more than one year. This latter figure is disturbing. The HIP returns also reveal that 34 local authorities had 15,331, or 80 per cent., of the estimated total of 19,000 long-term vacant properties. There are 34 local authorities which have consistently failed to make adequate use of their housing stock in the way that my hon. Friend has suggested. Copies of these returns are placed in the Library, as my hon. Friend will know.

I accept that these figures show that the empty dwellings problem is a major one but only for a minority of authorities. Nearly 80 per cent. of councils in England, whatever their politial persuasion, are achieving a void rate of 2 per cent. or less.

This is not to say, however, that the majority of councils should be complacent about the problem. Within my hon. Friend's constituency, which contains the district council of Lichfield and part of the borough council of Tamworth, HIP returns show that Lichfield reported 109 vacant dwellings on 1 April 1982, of which 10 had been empty for more than a year. Tamworth, on the same date, had 215 vacant dwellings, of which one had been empty for over a year. As a proportion of housing stock, these figures represent void rates of 1.6 per cent. and 2.5 per cent. respectively. My hon. Friend and I may not regard these as being of great significance, but, compared with the previous year at 1 April 1981, Lichfield's void rate rose from 1.3 per cent. to 1.6 per cent. and Tamworth's from 1.8 per cent. to 2.5 per cent.

Mr. Heddle

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. What he has just told the House, in effect, highlights the point I am making, because he will recall that in my speech I referred to 50 houses in Glascote road in Tamworth bought by the local authority. I stand to be corrected. They may have been bought by the Staffordshire county council in advance of the proposed rate improvement scheme but they are not revealed in the statistics in the HIP returns which have just been quoted by my hon. Friend.

Whether the properties are owned by the local authority, the Tamworth borough council, or the Staffordshire county council, there is a loophole in the recording procedures which the Department has set up with the local authorities and perhaps the figures are not painting the sort of picture that bears a close relation to reality.

Mr. Shaw

I have to accept that my hon. Friend is right. Inevitably properties move from one ownership to another of because of local circumstances. This may result in void properties as a result of the requirements of another local authority. The Department must operate a national system which is understandable. I think that the HIP system is the most relevant in trying to determine what is happening to housing stock in any district.

The problem of dealing with the monitoring of voids, and indeed with the eradication of voids, is a local one. The Government can only offer advice and, it is hoped, resources, which are available. The question is really one for local determination and local solution, and there is no substitute for the energy with which my hon. Friend pursues local authorities in his constituency in order to find a solution. The trend has not been all that helpful even though the absolute numbers in both Lichfield and Tamworth are relatively small compared with the 34 authorities which have failed to make proper use of their stock. The figures, therefore, should not give cause for alarm.

Let us look more closely at the risks and dangers involved. Voids are both a symptom and a direct cause of difficult-to-let estates. They invariably create a double financial burden on the authority — a loss of rent and rate income and, on top of that, the cost of boarding up and the sometimes enormous additional costs of repairing the ravages of vandalism, to which my hon. Friend has frequently referred. The reduction of the number of empty dwellings to the minimum must be a top management objective of every housing authority and every council.

Dwellings become empty and remain so for varying periods. In many cases, the fact that certain houses are vacant can be fully justified, and indeed the use to which my hon. Friend referred—for example, acquisition for road works—is perfectly justifiable. Some are available to let and some are on offer; some are undergoing or awaiting repair or improvement; some require major structural work; and others are awaiting demolition. But I accept my hon. Friend's point that in many cases short-term lettings to those who are in greatest need can probably provide welcome relief.

Finally, there is a range of miscellaneous reasons. However, when houses are empty for an unnecessarily long time there is justifiable cause for concern.

In considering the problem against the background of my own planning responsibilities, I am convinced that one of the factors that could ease pressure on green belt land and the need to develop greenfield sites is the encouragement and promotion of the maximum use of homes that exist in inner city areas that could and should be occupied. I am sure that my hon. Friend will endorse that view.

The Government's response to this problem has been vigorous and, I trust, effective. We have put forward a wide range of measures to encourage local authorities to make better use of their existing stock of dwellings. These include, among other things, the improvement-for-sale scheme, consents issued to those authorities wishing to waive the interest for a period of mortgages granted for homesteading, powers for local authorities to guarantee building society mortgages and the consent given both to district and to county councils to sell vacant dwellings at discounts of up to 30 per cent. to priority groups such as first-time buyers. Capitalised repair expenditure on all local authority dwellings is now eligible for housing subsidy.

The Government, too, have been active in offering practical guidance to local authorities. In 1980, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction initiated a study undertaken by my Department's housing services advisory unit of some 40 local authorities and their practices and policies in dealing with the problems of empty dwellings. A report of that study entitled "Reducing the Number of Empty Dwellings" was issued in March 1981. Copies have been sent to every local authority and are available in the House. The study covers rent and rate losses. It examines the problems created by void property, the reasons for voids and recommends various steps that authorities can take. It includes suggestions for void control and includes suggestions for organisation, policies and initiatives to reduce voids. I have no doubt—I trust that my hon. Friend will agree with this — that the Government have provided every possible incentive and form of advice to help efficient housing authorities to avoid the problem of void dwellings.

I remind the House that in 1979, on the related problem of difficult-to-let dwellings, the Government mounted the priority estates projects, which is to run until 1984 and on which reports were published in 1981 and 1982. A main finding of the project is that physical improvement is not enough. Housing management in particular is seen as a key. The Department's film of priority estates, which I hope my hon. Friend has seen — "Tackling Priority Estates" — and which was completed last year, has already been shown to councillors and officers of 294 local authorities in England. My hon. Friend has run a massive campaign which must dramatise the issue of how to deal better with existing housing stock. Illustrated in that film is a series of examples of how authorities have dramatically reduced their void problems by improved security, new letting practices—for example, letting to the elderly or to students rather than to families—and by sales to both individuals and builders.

A number of innovative councils have shown again and again that, with new policies, void dwellings can be reduced and, indeed, eliminated. The Government have set out the local policies that are required to reduce voids in written guidance, in speeches and on film. I urge authorities to give higher priority to putting those policies into effect and to place greater emphasis on achieving in the course of the year a drastic reduction in the 19,000 council houses and flats that have been vacant for more than a year. That is a scandal and there is no reason for avoiding solving it. In raising the issue tonight, my hon. Friend has once again dramatised the importance of so doing.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.