Smith Houses (Hansard, 29 March 1983)

§ Mr. David Gilroy Bevan (Birmingham, Yardley)
My interest in this debate is as the Member of Parliament for Birmingham, Yardley. Coincidentally, I have qualifications in the profession of the land and am a fellow of the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors and of the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers. This is one occasion when those matters are coincidental and can help me to consider the background to the subject.
There has been substantial difficulty in Birmingham about Smith houses. Those houses were fully explained as long ago as 1948 in the post-war building studies No. 25, a house construcion report by an interdepartmental committee appointed by the Minister for Health, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Works. It stated that they were built by the Smith's Building System (Birmingham) Ltd., formerly British Steel Construction (Birmingham) Ltd. I understand that that company went bankrupt. The houses have foundations of reinforced concrete slab, thickened as necessary to form strip foundations. The walls are built of large factory-made units consisting of foamed slag concrete faced with burnt clay tails of the same face dimensions as stretcher bricks. These are moulded into a backing and fitted on site. The tails are 1¼ in thick and give no strength, and the block behind on the ground floor, the supporting wall of the house which is laid on the concrete slab—which is of foamed slag concrete—is only 6 in thick. That is 150 mm smaller than the scale rule.
That is the width of the block. That block on the first floor reduces to about 4 in or 100 mm thick.
This system came about as a result of pressure at the end of the war from Ministers to develop industrialised building systems to cope with the post-war bulge and to accommodate the returning members of the forces and those who desperately needed housing in that era. In Birmingham there are about 1,525 such houses. However, the number varies. In one letter that I received of 28 October the number was 1,525, but in a letter of 2 October it was 1,524, which could mean that one house had fallen down or been mislaid. However, the numbers were reduced. Those houses are predominantly in my constituency, in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre), the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Spellar).
The city owns 970 houses, but the letters that I have received say that it could be 979. About 550 houses have been sold as a result of interest by the tenants of the corporation of Birmingham, who have bought the houses under either the city or the national scheme. In analysing the problems, I wish to pay tribute to the help that I have received from my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green, who has accompanied me to meetings with the chairman of the housing committee in Birmingham, who has met the association of owners, and who convened a meeting that was attended by the hon. Member for Northfield. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Northfield and the hon. Member for Stechford, who have been diligent and interested in this phenomena on behalf of their constituents, and who are alarmed about this matter, as am 318 I and my hon. Friend. We are alarmed because the situation has been complicated and the waters muddied. There has been structural trouble. Of those still in the city ownership, 84 have had remedial work completed or are in process of completion, and the number of properties in the 1983–84 remedial works programme is about 110, funded by the HIP and topped up by capital receipts. About £3 million was dedicated in the years 1982–83 and 1983–84 to refurbishing the properties by the council and the city of Birmingham.
I started to describe the walls of these properties. In the original prototype buildings there was no dampproof membrane in the supporting wall, although that was later altered, and one was fitted in the houses which developed from the prototype houses. At no time was a dampproof membrane put into the foamed cement slag floor of the house. The promoters claimed that it was unnecessary, as they believed that damp would not rise through the foamed slag concrete, which varies in thickness.
The junctions between the walls and partitions are made by recessing the units. The internal walls, which are like a jigsaw puzzle of blocks, which are put together and which have reinforced metal carrying handles and form an interweaving reinforcement of the block in the wall, are finished internally with lime putty and coated with plaster of Paris. They are reinforced horizontally with steel rods. I take issue with the Minister for Housing and Construction that they are not reinforced prefabricated concrete houses, because I and others consider that they are. It was interesting that they were omitted from the recent list of six houses of the prefabricated type scheduled for special investigation. I thank my hon. Friend for the information that we have been given today, that Smith houses are now to be the subject of investigation and that a report will be made on them.
These houses with their tapering walls—they are narrower at the top than at the bottom—lacked investigation in the first place. Even in 1948, the report says that no tests or calculations had been made by the Building Research Station on the strength and stability of the houses, but having regard to the thickness of the walls and the stiffening of the cross walls it thought that the efficiency would be satisfactory. Even in the prototype, the one that was built in Dangerfield lane, Wednesbury, it is said that a horizontal crack had developed in the staircase external wall and it is thought that this may be due to a slight spread of the roof at this point. So even in the prototype in those far-off days, some 35 years ago, there was a crack. Dampness has been observed in the prototype at the base of the walls. The foamed slag concrete units were built into the walls and partitions in an immature condition, with the result that cracks had developed due to drying shrinkage. I am quoting from the document that is available in the Library.
With regard to maintenance and durability it is mentioned that cracking is most noticeable on the ground floor party wall, where continuous vertical cracks, extending from floor to ceiling". It then states that the possibility that the crack in the staircase wall is the result of structural movement cannot be overlooked". Even in the prototype, the possibility of structural movement "cannot be overlooked". That is the basis of my plea to the Under-Secretary of State. I ask him to accept that these properties are subject to design failure, structural 319 inadequacy and structural movement. Their problems have not been caused just by the sulphate growth in the shale that was the underfill to the slab of the floor. That shale was believed to have come from the Coventry Deep colliery and to have been untreated. It had not been fully burnt off and thus in later years the shale was able to grow, and the walls heaved and bulged. The problems, however, are not due only to that growth; they have other causes too. In my view, the same symptoms could develop elsewhere in similar circumstances of ground movement. I believe that wind and suction tests were carried out yesterday by officials of the Department on houses in the area, and that various other tests have been carried out.
It is obvious that even at the prototype stage the houses were not considered adequate. It was recommended that the steel clamps that were used as ties between the walling units should receive adequate treatment.
According to the development group, the design was modified by the incorporation of a dampproof course into the walls, but not to the floor, although in the reinstatement work being carried out by the city of Birmingham no fewer than two dampproof membrane courses are being put into the floors of the council-owned properties where there were none already, because if water penetrates it will act upon any remaining sulphate. That is done after the whole depth of soil, sometimes to a depth of five or six feet, has been dug out to prevent the salts from developing and acting chemically.
I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for this technical and possibly boring recital. The subject is not boring to my constituents, to my hon. Friend, or to the hon. Members who have had to deal with the pitiful cases of many tenants. I wrote to each of the 119 tenants concerned. I wrote several letters as the refurbishing progressed. I must congratulate the city of Birmingham on dealing with the anxieties point by point. Tenants were worried about whether their carpets would fit, whether their fittings could be replaced, and where their furniture would be stored. They were frightened about being decamped from the property for three months or more, and returning to it subsequently. They were worried about many things, but every point was dealt with.
We cannot give the same guarantees to the owners because they have not the same redress. I have therefore pressed my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on previous occasions to make available to them the same facilities made available following the case made out by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) in respect of Airey houses. That case was allowed because a structural design fault was found and a question of safety arose. Generous grants of 90 per cent. were made available to the owner-occupiers in that case. I therefore ask Ministers once again to consider this and to make the same generous Exchequer-funded grants to those who have purchased and who have no redress, to those who cannot get insurance, to those who wish to retire—they are all old and many have lived in the properties for more than 30 years—and to those who cannot retire and move because they cannot sell because even perfectly adequate properties are blighted by reputation. I therefore ask that the same scheme be made available to the owners of Smith houses because the same position obtains.
Timber window sashes were used and dampproof courses installed. I have had hundreds of letters from owners and tenants who were worried sick about this. 320 They have been patient and calm throughout the bewildering process of seeing properties decay and collapse around them. That is no exaggeration. There are different dimensions to the problem. There are houses that look, and virtually are, untouched, there are those that have cracks that must be dealt with, there are those that are in an extremely bad state, in which walls are moving and floors heaving, and some that are fit only for the bulldozer.
My constituents in the Radleys, Willaston Road, Hazeldene Road, Elmstead Avenue, Wensley Road, and Wychwood Crescent are perturbed if they have bought their homes. I received a letter today enjoining me to love my neighbour, saying that that was the greatest of all things. But it is difficult to love one's neighbour when £3,000 or more, and in some cases £10,000, is being spent on the neighbour's house because he is a tenant, when that house is being ripped apart and the support walls replaced and the owner of the adjoining house has to suffer all the noise of the pneumatic drills ripping the floor up, and when, as Mrs. Wright of the Radleys says, water used to mix cement in the tenanted house under repair washes through the wall causing dampness and damage to carpets. It is difficult to love one's neighbour when that neighbour is having two damp courses put in so that the water shifts underneath to the owner-occupied house next door. It is difficult to be a good neighbour when the insurance company that always comes round after the fire to offer a caravan refuses to underwrite the insurance in this case.
Time does not permit me to mention all the design faults—in the thicknesses, the blocks, the movement of the blocks, the tensile life of the concrete and many other matters. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to consider the basic human and moral problems involved. It is not just a case of let purchaser beware. It could involve patent law. It involves that which is discernible to the eye and that which is not discernible. The houses are traditional in appearance, and many assume that they are so. I hope that the Minister will take steps to ensure that whatever is necessary to be done, is done. There should be remuneration. If necessary, we should have a mini Falklands campaign in housing refurbishment. These, and other houses could be refurbished and people could be employed.
I ask my hon. Friend to consider the proposition put to him, I understand, by the city of Birmingham. It is prepared to undertake the work, to apply for special repair grants and to get the 90 per cent. grant available. I hope that the Minister will consider that or any other feasible option. I ask him to consider our constituents, who are in a difficult plight.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young)
The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) for raising this topic and giving us the benefit of his technical skills in explaining the real problems facing his constituents. I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre), in his place. He has been in constant contact with me and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction on this issue. I am also pleased to see the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis), who has also been championing his constituents' case.
321 The three hon. Members, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Spellar), had a meeting earlier this afternoon with me and my hon. Friend the Minister. They made it quite clear to us that there are a great many people who have bought Smith houses from Birmingham city council, who are now desperately anxious because of the serious cracks that have appeared in the walls of their houses. No one could have done more to further the interests of their constituents than those four hon. Members. Of course the Government fully understand the anxiety of those families and their wish to see this matter resolved as soon as practicable. My hon. Friend the Member for Yardley has taken us through the history, and I shall not repeat it.
Initially it was felt that the problem was confined to the shale fill under the foundations, but more recent investigations by the city council suggest that the problem is not restricted to that. Some cracking has been found in the walls where there is no apparent movement of the foundations. It seems that large blocks of the type of which the Smith house is constructed are very sensitive to stress from whatever source, whether it be movement of the foundations or thermal or moisture movement. The precise cause of the problem, and the remedial works appropriate to any particular case, have not yet been clearly established.
The problem is not, on present evidence, related to the deterioration of reinforced concrete because of carbonation of the concrete or the presence of chlorides, as has been found, for example, in Airey and Orlit houses. But the Smith house is unusual and the problem is technically complex, and we have therefore asked the Building Research Establishment to examine the technical evidence and to identify the cause of the cracking that has now been found.
The House will inderstand that the BRE's investigation, which will involve inspection of houses on site, will take some time to complete, but we shall make available the findings of that investigation as soon as it is completed and as soon as we have sufficient information to be confident technically about the results. I know that every day that goes by prolongs the anxiety for private owners who cannot, with confidence, invest in the maintenance, improvement or repair of their property, who may not know what, if any, repair is required, and who, if they wanted to move, might find the property unsaleable. But before the right course of action can be agreed, we have to have the technical facts of the matter. The problem is complex and it is in everyone's interests to await the BRE's considered appraisal of the problem rather than proceed now with action that might, with hindsight, prove ill-advised.
I know that Birmingham city council is already engaged on its own appraisal of the problem and the Building Research Establishment will be working closely with the city council in its investigation. I know, too, that Birmingham city council is sympathetic to the problems faced by owner-occupiers and is prepared to help them in a variety of ways. For example, I gather that where repair is required in some cases the city may be willing to include an owner-occupier's house in its own programme of repair on the basis that the costs will be reimbursed and that the 322 city would temporarily rehouse an owner-occupier in a rented property if he had to leave his home while the repair works were in progress.
My hon. Friend pressed me on the possible extension of the scheme that we brought in for private owners of Airey houses. I hope that he understands that I cannot today add to what my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction said in the House on 8 February. On the evidence available, the combination of circumstances that exist in the Smith houses are not the same as those that were thought to justify financial assistance for owners of Airey houses, but we shall carefully consider the findings of the current investigation into the Smith houses and assess their implications as soon as possible.

§ Mr. Bevan
Will my hon. Friend be good enough to tell me when the information will be available to us so that we may consider its implications?

§ Sir George Young
We hope that the exercise that I described a few minutes ago might be completed by May. As my hon. Friend the Minister said in the meeting this afternoon, we shall take steps to make the information available to interested parties as soon as we have it in a suitable form. We understand the urgency and the anxiety of owners to see the problem resolved.
I hope that I have convinced my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley that we are worried about what is happening in Birmingham, that the technical investigation is now under way and that we have the matter in hand. Ministers will take whatever action is felt to be necessary as soon as possible. We shall, of course, keep informed those hon. Members who represent Birmingham.

§ Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham, Stechford)
Before the Minister finishes will he bear in mind the fact that two other groups are affected; not only those owner-occupiers whose houses are showing signs of cracking, damp or stress but those who have been affected even though their houses appear to be perfectly all right because they are having great difficulty in selling their homes? They are tied to their homes in Birmingham and that can be very distressing if they want to move to other parts of Britain—for example, for employment.
Secondly, there is a problem with the city council because it would be unfair if the council tenants in the rest of Birmingham were forced to pay for the cost of the necessary works on the council-owned properties if the owner-occupiers were compensated. That would be inequitable as between tenants and owner-occupiers. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will bear in mind the interests of all groups?

§ Sir George Young
Of course, there are financial consequences to the city council if it has to carry out a programme of repair and improvement. We should take that into account in the HIP allocation for Birmingham city council next year. The incidence of these houses is relatively small compared with the overall stock of local authority accommodation in Birmingham, so I hope that the impact will not be devastating. However, we shall bear all points in mind. There is a blight on the properties and we should have to address ourselves to that when we decided what, if any, scheme ought to be introduced. It is the owners of those properties that we are most worried about.
323 It being after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
324 Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past One o' clock.