Seaside and Country Homes Scheme

HC Deb 17 May 1984 vol 60 cc615-24

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

11.6 pm

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)

This is a timely and important debate on an issue that merits the attention and concern of both sides of the House. It is about the future of the GLC's seaside and country homes scheme for retired Londoners.

The scheme provides 3,200 homes outside London. It allows elderly tenants of the GLC and the London boroughs to retire to the seaside or countryside and thus releases accommodation in London for young couples in desperate need of homes of their own. The scheme has brought joy to thousands of elderly people. At the same time, it has given homes and hope to thousands of young married couples. Its success is reflected by a waiting list of 1,500 which, as I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) will have an opportunity to explain, grows tragically longer week by week because of the present uncertainties.

I must explain how I have come to be so closely involved with my right hon. Friend in the campaign to defend the scheme. Its elderly beneficiaries, many of whom, inevitably, are disabled, now live in 19 counties outside London, and my right hon. Friend and I were asked by them, as by the GLC, to present a petition asking the Government to allow the seaside and country homes scheme to continue. They approached us, they said, because of our special interest over the years in the problems of elderly and disabled people.

We presented their petition to the House on 16 March. It was signed by tenants of the GLC's scheme who now live in Avon, Berkshire, Cambridgeshire, Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Essex, Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Kent Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Shropshire, Somerset, Suffolk, Sussex and Wiltshire. The petition made plain the deeply felt anxieties of its signatories about the future of the seaside and country homes scheme and, in particular, their alarm that it might cease to exist if the GLC is abolished.

Anyone who doubts the very high regard in which the GLC is held by the people it exists to help, or who finds it difficult to understand why such a huge majority of Londoners want the GLC to stay, should speak to the tenants of the scheme we are debating here tonight. Well over 80 per cent. of them signed the petition. They did so not only out of concern for their own security but also to help other Londoners to enjoy the benefits of the scheme. Councillor Tony McBrearty and his colleagues on the GLC's housing committee, and their officials, can take legitimate pride in having demonstrated, beyond dispute, that London with the GLC is a capital city with a heart.

The Prime Minister wrote to me on 24 April, copying her letter to my right hon. Friend, to comment on the tenants' petition. She wrote: I understand the genuine concern expressed by yourselves and those who signed the petition. We have always recognised that the scheme is highly prized by Londoners, and we have decided to ensure that it continues to be available for London's elderly people. We shall be discussing appropriate arrangements with those directly involved. That was a partial retreat from the Government's original intention as set out in "Streamlining the Cities". The White Paper proposed simply to give the 3,200 homes away to the district councils in whose areas they were built, stripping London's ratepayers of £70 million worth of assets. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister's letter begs more questions than it answers.

In particular, we need to know tonight whether the Government are prepared to give an assurance that 100 per cent. of vacancies will go to Londoners. The alternative is to admit that abolition of the GLC would cut the help now available to elderly Londoners.

How do the Government intend to honour the Prime Minister's promise to them of continued access to the scheme? Who, precisely, will be given the task? Would abolition of the GLC reduce the freedom of a tenant to move back to London or to another of the estates built under the scheme? How would any new arrangements be better or cheaper than those which already exist?

The fear persists, not least among people on the waiting list, that the scheme will not be allowed to continue at its present level. The tenants do not believe that it could be run by any other body either as efficiently or with as much care for individual needs as it is now by the GLC. They suspect that their mobility would be reduced, and are very strongly opposed to the GLC's abolition. Moreover, as was revealed by the results of a poll published by Audience Selection on 15 May, their opposition is now backed not only by the Government's critics but by a clear majority of their own supporters in London.

If the GLC's property is expropriated, will the Government insist on payment of financial contributions to the districts? If so, they will be asking London's ratepayers to pay for the use of their own expropriated assets. That would be the definition of a scandal. Left to themselves, there is scant prospect that the district councils would concede 100 per cent. nomination rights to Londoners. They have over 70,000 people on their own housing waiting lists, and this was pointedly emphasised by the Association of District Councils in reacting to the Government's original proposal. Let me quote just one sentence from its response: It has to be recognised that receiving authorities are likely to prefer to see ex-GLC properties let from their own waiting lists.

Every suggested alternative to control by the GLC of the scheme it has evolved has been faulted by informed opinion. There are compelling cases against the scheme being run by the London Boroughs Association, the National Mobility Office, any kind of unelected quango or, even more disastrously, by the Department of the Environment. At present tenants can easily move between the estates built under the scheme or back to London. How could any successor body do the same in as accountable a way and as cost effectively? In other words, why imperil an excellent scheme when the Government have no idea with what it can be replaced? Is this streamlining?

Under the seaside and country homes scheme, one authority builds, lets and manages the properties. Infinite care is taken in selecting tenants, as I saw on a visit to County Hall last week. That is why the returns rate is so low. There is, by common consent, excellent management of a scheme which, in the view of everyone who knows of its achievement, ought to be expanded, and not curtailed.

The scheme is paid for by Londoners for Londoners, including ratepayers in the Prime Minister's constituency, and those of the Secretary of State for the Environment and the hon. Gentleman who is to reply for the Government to this debate.

The hon. Gentleman may plead that he cannot say in detail tonight how the Prime Minister's pledge in her letter to me will be kept. That will not be good enough. Thousands of elderly people need reassurance now. I refer both to existing tenants of the scheme and to the 1,500 would-be tenants on the waiting list. The Government bear a direct responsibility for their anxieties.

Let the Minister speak, for example, to two elderly constituents of his, Mr. and Mrs. M. Evans, details of whose case I can provide, who are very anxious to move to Kent or east Sussex and would now have moved to Peacehaven if that proposed scheme had not been vetoed by the hon. Member's own Department.

The Prime Minister said in her letter to me that the Government would be discussing appropriate arrangements with the authorities directly concerned. Who has been and is to be consulted? I am told that neither the GLC nor the Association of London Authorities is being consulted. That is outrageous.

Are the districts being asked for their views? And why were they not consulted at the time of the original proposals? Again, will consultation by the Government be meaningful in the sense that they will do nothing further to curtail the scheme without the agreement of those who know most about it? Will the tenants be consulted?

To damage the seaside and country homes scheme would be an act of official vandalism. It is a scheme which, instead of being undermined, deserves to be strongly commended for its humane concern to help young and old alike. The Minister must surely accept that to expropriate £70 million worth of assets from London's ratepayers would itself be iniquitous, quite apart from the undermining of a scheme that has brought happiness to over 10,000 people and can do as much for many thousands more in the future.

The need for a clear and positive ministerial statement is urgent. Indeed, I put it to the hon. Gentleman that urgency has rarely been more urgent.

11.15 pm

Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

I am glad to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and I congratulate him on making such a forthright speech. I should also like to congratulate the GLC. It is a very contentious organisation, but on this occasion it deserves great credit for having devised and carried out such an imaginative scheme.

Very few authorities consider providing for their citizens in areas outside their boundaries, but on this occasion the GLC has done so, and that is highly desirable. I pay tribute to the imagination and resourcefulness of the GLC. Many elderly people want to stay near their relatives, in familiar surroundings, when they retire. That is quite understandable. However, many do not want to and some prefer the countryside. After having suffered a great deal of poverty in some cases, they want to get away and fulfil an ambition to go to the countryside for reasons of health or comfort. But, for whatever reasons, the GLC scheme has given a choice—that is the great thing—to many old and disabled people, and the scheme is widely acclaimed by observers, and greatly appreciated by the participants.

I do not want to speak now on the controversy about the Government's efforts to torpedo the GLC, although it is an absurd and undemocratic move by the Government to try to abolish it. However, I wish to attack the Government's efforts to sink the excellent provision made by the GLC for old and disabled people. The scheme is giving thousands of people who need such encouragement enormous pleasure. Let us imagine the plight of an old couple who have lived their lives in London and who have reached the stage where they are thinking of how to spend their retirement. They hear of the GLC scheme. They may have come from outside London but they decide to retire to the country. They then apply for acceptance and find that the Government are pinching the scheme. They are giving away the houses concerned. It is impossible for Ministers to justify such a move.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe has said, there are encouraging signs that the Government are having second thoughts. I do not think that the Prime Minister was quite as clear as she could have been. Perhaps she was deliberately ambiguous or ambivalent in her answer to our letter. Nevertheless, she showed some signs of a shift in the Government's stance, which I welcome. But it is not sufficient to give such an answer. We need a more explicit answer. The scheme should be allowed to remain and the Government should say clearly that Londoners who have bought and paid for these homes should keep them within their control. I hope that the scheme will be allowed to expand to meet the demand. But it is not enough to ensure that these old and disabled people have access to the scheme, because without the GLC it becomes difficult to administer.

The Government should provide clear and concise answers to the worries of those old and disabled people. I hope that the Government will reach their conclusion without undue delay. If the Minister can give a categorical answer this evening, it will be greatly appreciated. I hope that he will see his way clear to providing an answer as soon as possible.

11.20 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young)

The House recognises the commitment to the interests of the elderly and disabled of the right hon. Members for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). I confess to an element of surprise that a matter which is of primary concern to elderly people in London should have been raised by right hon. Members representing Manchester and Stoke constituencies.

The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe mentioned two constituents of mine, Mr. and Mrs. Evans. I am sure that he will tell them that I hold two advice sessions each week in my constituency office at 91 Shakespeare road. I should be delighted to see either of them at their earliest convenience.

I emphasise a point made by both right hon. Gentlemen — the importance of the seaside and country homes scheme. They rightly underlined the opportunities which the scheme provides for London's elderly people to enjoy their retirement in homes outside the capital.

It might be helpful if I sketch briefly a little of the background to our recent consideration of the scheme's future, and the GLC's housing role generally.

For virtually three quarters of a century the GLC's predecessor, the London County Council, was the dominant force in London's public-sector housing. Faced with the appalling problems of that time, and far more powerful than virtually all the multitude of small-scale lower-tier authorities in the capital, the LCC had a natural task in clearing many of London's nineteenth century slums, in replacing homes destroyed by bombing, and in building outside the capital to help relieve London's desperate housing shortage.

This last element was seen as an important contribution to the dispersal of population from the overcrowded capital to the more spacious surroundings in much of the southern half of the country.

Initially, efforts were concentrated on building in what is now outer London — then, of course, outside "London's" boundaries. Subsequently, and as that area, too, became built up, more effort was devoted to promoting new housing and often jobs in locations well away from the capital—the town development schemes, expanded towns and overspill estates which enabled many Londoners to make a fresh start in a fresh environment. Often it was possible to provide individual houses which the high land prices in London would have made impossible.

The Greater London Council as successor authority to the LCC carried on with many of these developments and undertook new ones. There were obviously parallels with the development of the new towns, and great efforts were made by all concerned to make the dispersal of population a success.

Thus developed the GLC's seaside and country homes programme, providing elderly people's accommodation outside London for retired council tenants from the capital. The programme began in 1964, and, as the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe said, nearly 3,500 dwellings have been built. They are widely scattered, usually in small groups, over more than 70 locations in the area of about 40 district councils. No one could deny their popularity. As an hon. Member representing a London constituency, I am only too well aware that the vacancies are like gold dust.

The GLC's construction record has been by no means blameless—a number of half-built estates were at one time apparently left unfinished. But, once built, the dwellings have certainly proved a success. Tenants have been able to pass their retirements in enjoyable surroundings and with the company of other Londoners, while often also near to their relatives.

The housing authorities in London, on the other hand, have gained by the extra lettings that they have been able to make in their own stock, filling the vacancies created by those leaving the capital.

Yet while the need for and popularity of the seaside and country homes scheme remains strong to this day, in other respects the tide was turning against the GLC's main housing activities. It became accepted that in many places the policy of population dispersal had gone far enough, and the winding-up of local authority town development and overspill schemes paralleled reductions in activity among the new towns.

At the same time, increasing emphasis was being placed on the problems of the inner cities and on measures to meet them. Finally, in 1980 and 1981, the GLC voluntarily transferred to the district councils ownership of the 25,000 dwellings that it still owned outside London, apart from the seaside and country homes.

Other processes were at work within the capital. The London Government Act 1963 brought into being a much stronger and multi-purpose lower tier of local government, the London boroughs, at the same time as it established the GLC. The Herbert commission had seen housing as essentially a local service, a view with which Parliament agreed in establishing the borough councils as the local housing authorities for their areas. The Act specifically envisaged the transfer of the GLC's housing stock to the boroughs in due course and the possible termination of many of that council's housing powers.

The 1970s saw the London boroughs becoming increasingly self-reliant in the exercise of their housing powers, with the spread of the concept of integrated housing departments, and recognition of the importance of close working relationships between housing officers and those dealing with the health and social services powers that the boroughs had acquired also.

Housing is an essentially local service, in which experience has shown that close contact between tenants and management is vital if estates are to be handled well and their potential realised to the full.

The desirability of, let alone need for, any remaining role for the GLC in this field became more and more questionable, and ownership of some dwellings was transferred to London boroughs between 1971 and 1973. Eventually, under a series of orders made between 1980 and 1982, the GLC divested itself of almost all its remaining housing, in a series of operations which paralleled on a larger scale those taking place outside London.

The culmination of this process was the Government's recognition in 1981 that as primary housing authorities the London boroughs should share between them as large a proportion as possible of the finite volume of housing investment programme resources that could be made available to London. Since that decision, the GLC's housing allocation has been related almost exclusively to its responsibilities under the transfer orders, and the council has no longer been allowed to pre-empt resources for use on work which the boroughs are equally empowered and better placed to undertake.

Against the background of the diminution in the GLC's responsibilities which had already taken place, we proposed in October that, on abolition of the GLC, ownership of its council's seaside and country homes should pass to the district councils in whose areas they lay. We recorded also that London boroughs wishing to enable their retired tenants to move to these dwellings in future would be able to negotiate with the districts for nomination rights, in return for financial contributions. Nomination rights so obtained might be pooled if the boroughs so wished.

We suggested the creation of a voluntary joint committee to co-ordinate those arrangements. The rights would, however, have been ultimately in the hands of the boroughs themselves as the capital's housing authorities—an important contrast to the present position where boroughs are able to make nominations only by courtesy of the GLC.

It is nonsense to suppose, as some have done, that these proposals were intended to reduce opportunities for movement out of London. This Government have probably done more than any other to encourage and facilitate mobility among local authority tenants throughout the country.

I shall not dwell in detail on the national mobility scheme which was set up in 1981 and which has brought mobility within the reach of many people. After three years, the number of moves under the scheme between councils and different counties is now well over 12,000. We have taken a complementary step in setting up the tenants' exchange scheme. There are currently about 36,000 registrations within the scheme. The right to exchange is embodied in the Housing and Building Control Bill. which is before the House.

In the context of the seaside and country homes scheme I have been seriously concerned about the misrepresentations to which our proposals have been subjected—in particular, the chairman of the GLC's housing committee wrote to all the tenants of the seaside and country homes presenting our proposals in a manner that I can only describe as one-sided, and that with some moderation on my part. In a letter of seven paragraphs, the chairman severely criticised what he saw as the consequences of our proposals but at no point made any mention of nomination rights being negotiated by the boroughs. I believe, from the correspondence I have seen since then, that that letter caused a good deal of unnecessary anxiety among elderly tenants. It alleged that continuing links with London would end, that opportunities for moves back to London or elsewhere would decline, and that the special character of the estates and their community spirit would be lost.

Yet borough nomination rights would, of course, meet virtually all these concerns, and it is hardly surprising if the absence of any mention of them caused the widespread fears among the elderly which we see reflected in the petition presented to the House by the right hon. Members for Wythenshawe and for Stoke-on-Trent, South. As in a number of other areas, the GLC's letter and the consequent petition equate the survival of a particular service with the survival of the council but fail to substantiate why that should be so. I am not the only Member of this place to feel great concern that our proposals were so misrepresented in the GLC's letter to elderly tenants, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in deploring its content. None the less, the fears have been raised and the Government have to respond to the representations that we have received to try to allay these concerns.

In consequence, as the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe has said and as the House will be aware, my right hon. Friend announced on 11 April on Second Reading of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill that measures would be taken to ensure that the seaside and country homes would continue to be available to London's council tenants. Those measures will have statutory force.

I cannot guarantee that every last dwelling will be preserved for London's use for ever and a day. To hear some of the references made by the GLC and the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe to the homes having been built "with London money", one might forget that the Exchequer contributed up to three quarters of the costs. But we certainly intend that the London boroughs collectively should have access to the lion's share of the lettings and that fair financial arrangements should be made reflecting the benefits obtained. We expect that there should therefore be no question of major changes in the character of the estates, the prospect of which has worried so many of the existing tenants. They have also been alarmed by suggestions that standards of management would decline under the districts. Yet 80 per cent. are managed locally already under agency arrangements. Further, once ownership has been transferred, the tenants will be able to vote for or against the councillors who really control the local service. Finally, we would aim to preserve the facility for tenants both to move between estates and to return to London if they so choose under the powers of the statutory London mobility scheme, which has been announced by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Alfred Morris

The Minister has questioned the genuineness of the petitioners' concern. The Prime Minister, in her letter to me of 24 April, said that she accepted that there was genuine concern. Why should the Minister take a different view while speaking for the Government? Is he telling me that there will be every possibility that tenants under the scheme can move back to London? He appeared to be saying that there would be no obstacle if elderly people want to return to London. Is that his position? He will appreciate as well that I have asked many more questions than he has so far answered. Will he try his best to answer them before he concludes?

Sir George Young

As I think the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, the decision in principle to ensure that lettings will remain available to Londoners was announced slightly over a month ago. I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman or the House at this stage exactly what the detailed proposals are. We shall have to consult a number of those who are involved. Indeed, we have already done so. I have to tell him that I cannot answer all the specific points that he has raised. I can confirm that it will be a statutory scheme. I repeat that it will be possible under the statutory scheme for those who move out of London and wish to return to do so.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

The Minister makes little about the investment that Londoners have made in the provision of the homes and the capital asset that is being transferred to districts, which made no contribution to their provision. There is something inherently wrong in that. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. Secondly, can the Minister say whether the districts will have the ability to dispose of the seaside homes by selling them off to the tenants who are in them, or by disposal in any other way?

Sir George Young

The hon. Gentleman has referred to the disposal of "London's assets". There is a precedent, to which I have referred in my opening remarks, which lies in the non-seaside country homes which were built by the LCC outside London. Those were transferred voluntarily in the 1970s to the district councils. There was no great outcry by London that it had been deprived of some assets. That was seen as a sensible arrangement. The right to buy is in theory associated with many of the dwellings and it has been exercised. If the tenants fulfil the conditions under the 1980 and 1984 Acts, they will have the right buy either from the GLC or from the district council. To that extent it is irrelevant who the owner is. The right to buy is independent of that consideration.

I note that the time available for the debate is drawing to a close. I recognise the concern that has been expressed, but to some extent it has been stirred up unnecessarily by a somewhat one-sided letter which has been circulated to all the tenants of seaside and country homes. I can assure all those who participated in the debate that the Government will be issuing detailed proposals in due course. It is our belief that we can tackle the problem in a way that preserves the interests of those who are involved.

Question put and agreed to

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Twelve o'clock.