§ Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)I congratulate the Church of England on its report "Faith in the City". It makes many telling points and draws attention to the growing crisis in our inner cities, caused and much exacerbated by the Government's policies. The report states:
The combination of unsatisfied needs and unused human abilities seems to us as uneconomic as it is illogical and immoral.Such sound moral and economic argument, which is relevant to our housing needs and capabilities, as well as to other aspects of life, was met by a bully-boy response from the Government.The part of the report that especially caught my eye was its identification of urban priority areas, not just in the inner cities but on the fringes of the cities in housing estates. The report says that they present a pressing problem for the mid-1980s. Its recognition of the fringes of cities clearly applies to Leyton, which is classified as outer London, but its housing and many other services mirror the deprivation of the inner city. The main reason why it is not officially recognised as an inner-city area is that it lies in the borough of Waltham Forest which contains in the north the relatively prosperous area of Chingford, although it, too, has pockets of housing problems. The rest of the borough, especially Leyton and Walthamstow, has inner-city problems, and the Government should recognise that in financial terms.
There is a growing housing crisis in Waltham Forest and a severe problem of homelessness. At present, the homeless are almost the only category who can be guaranteed offers of council accommodation. That is done at the expense of those on the waiting list and requiring transfers. But the policy has been adopted because the alternative is the expensive, wasteful, unsatisfactory and unsuitable bed-and-breakfast arrangements. I am informed that even in Waltham Forest the council cannot find accommodation for about 150 homeless families. Although Waltham Forest has avoided using bed-and-breakfast establishments until now, it could be forced to do so in the near future. Even then, there will be no relief for those on the waiting list and awaiting transfers.
With council houses being sold and no replacements being built, there is almost no hope of the overwhelming majority of people on the waiting lists being rehoused,. Many people live in desperate conditions, and have 70, 80 or 90 points, but are getting nowhere in their quest for housing. The young, the newly married and couples with no children have no chance.
The problem is the shortage of decent accommodation. Recently, I received a letter from the council's rehousing supervisor about the case of a Mrs Smith. He wrote:
In June this year the Housing Panel awarded a very high degree of social need priority to this case and recommended the offer of a three bedroom house … The problem of course is the very limited supply of such properties especially now no new properties are being built … I am sorry to write in such pessimistic tones when writing about a high priority case but the limited supply of properties is having a drastic effect on the prospects of any transfer case.The lack of new properties is causing great difficulties for tenants who want transfers. The housing manager was interviewed in the local press earlier this year. He said:
Because the supply of council homes has dried up … there is less opportunity to move within the Council sector, from the tower block estates to more popular properties.718 Some tenants who want transfers face a Catch-22 situation. I took up the case of my constituent Mr. Szersynski. He and his girl friend were in the "couples sharing" queue and had 61 points. The housing department wrote to me:The present rehousing level within the 'couples sharing' queue is 77 points".However, the couple are expecting twins, which gives them another 20 points, taking them past 77 points. That seemed to be excellent news, but the letter from the housing department added that when the twins come they will need two bedroomed accommodation and the minimum of points required for that is 110 points. That is a real Catch-22, or perhaps a Catch-110.Problems have also been caused for my constituents Mrs. Warsap and her 82-year-old parents in Chingford. Their case is reported in today's edition of the Walthamstow Guardian under the headline "Christmas Day Ruined." Mrs. Warsap and her parents want a three or four-bedroom house so that the family can live together. They have offered to swap the two houses that they currently occupy, both of which are in tip-top condition, but that proposal has had to be turned down. Mrs. Warsap told the Walthamstow Guardian:
When I walk in in the morning mum is often lying helpless and sobbing on the bed … For now, Christmas is a very sad time indeed.That is the sort of difficulty facing people who want transfers.Not only is there not enough money for building, but there is not enough to repair existing properties. In the interview with the local press earlier this year, the housing manager said:
We haven't got enough resources to do the basic repairs and improvements to our existing stock. Take our list of repairs so far. We've got a 10 year programme, but some of the things we'll be doing in year 10, we should be doing this year—no doubt about it … there is no money to spend on environmental upgrading of estates.That upgrading includes not only the appearance of estates, which is vital, but the facilities for mothers and children on those estates. Play groups and creches on the Hollydown way and Oliver close estates were started and run by the mothers, but have been denied support because of the lack of resources. If facilities are not provided and the environment of estates is not upgraded, it leads to problems such as those experienced on the Broadwater Farm estate as alienation sets in among the inhabitants.Improvements in the private sector in my borough have also been curtailed because there has been a block on improvement grants since August 1984. There is growing disrepair in that sector, too.
The problem is one of resources. As the housing manager said in that interview:
It sounds simplistic to say it's a money-linked problem, but to a large extent it is. Obviously you've got to strive to get the maximum out of what you've got, but all these things just can't be done with the amount of money we're working to.An additional dimension will exacerbate the housing misery of a large number of my constituents for many years to come unless additional resources are provided by the Government. The M11 link road is to be carved through my constituency. The Government gave an inadequate allocation for rehousing the displaced families. In an act of terrible mismanagement, the local Tory-Liberal council sold off the site which was to be used for 719 building new homes and used the money elsewhere. As a consequence, many more people will be in a housing crisis unless additional money is provided.In the face of these grim facts and those of 9,300 homes unfit for people to live in, 6,800 without bathrooms or inside toilets, 10,700 in need of urgent renovation, 1,300 overcrowded with more than two people per room, the Government dismiss any need for more to he done and abrogate their responsibility. They have cut Waltham Forest's housing investment allocation—the council received less than one third of what it deemed to be necessary.
It is ironic that the debate is taking place on the day when Tory Members are packing up to go to their comfortable homes in the shires. They should think for a moment how they would feel if they were in my surgery, in which I see family after family in housing discomfort and desperation, and bitterly dissatisfied. My housing caseload is a catalogue of human misery, worry and desperation. How many Tory Members go back to the awful circumstances experienced by my constituents?
How many parents of Tory Members experience conditions like those of Mrs. Harvey and her pensioner friends in my constituency, a case described in the local paper? She lives in a Leyton tower block and hates it. Not only do the lifts not work, but they are filthy and never get cleaned over the weekend because the council does not pay the caretaker overtime. When the lifts do not work there is a long haul up to her 11th floor flat. Mrs. Harvey and her friends dream of having their own front doors and gardens with a bit of green—nothing too fancy—but they realise that they are no longer spring chickens. Mrs. Harvey knows that in a few years she will not be able to climb stairs any more.
How many Tory Members have wives and children trapped on the tops of tower blocks unsuitable for their means, like Mrs. Palfreman and her two children and many others in my constituency? Another example is that of Mrs. Dibley and her large family who live in overcrowded conditions in property too small, dilapidated and inadequate for their living requirements. I have had cases in which teenage daughters and sons have had to share bedrooms or even where mothers are forced to share rooms with teenage sons because of their poor housing circumstances. I bet not many Conservative Members have experience of such housing problems. How can they say that monetarist cuts apply in these circumstances?
Let us compare this housing starkness under the Tories with Labour's alternative. We plan for a big boost in resources, extensive building of new homes and repairs and improvements to existing ones. Priority will be given to providing new homes for rent, a sector in which the need is overwhelming. There will be an enhanced role for local authorities, lifting the present Government restrictions on them, and for housing co-operatives. We shall provide new help for low-income households. That is a proper programme for decent homes, providing many jobs in the process. We need this programme of action for the people of Leyton and Leytonstone. My borough also needs a big boost in its housing investment allocation.
The Tory party should be ashamed when it sees Labour's effective housing alternative. It should be ashamed at its rough-neck reaction to the Church of England report, of its application of monetarist policies to housing and of what that has meant in personal misery to many of my constituents and thousands of others in the 720 country. It should be ashamed of backing the Chancellor. He has applied monetarist policies even to his own father-in-law, who has had to live in impoverished circumstances on state benefit—Victorian values, indeed.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young)The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) threw away what I thought was a good speech with some rather personal attacks at the end, which did not add much strength to his argument. If we are talking about shame, he might care to consider what happened to the housing investment programme under the previous Labour Government. He will find that the major reductions occurred then. There were reductions of some 49 per cent. as compared with 20 per cent. under this Administration. If the hon. Gentleman wants to dish out accusations and invite shame, he might address himself as much to the Opposition Benches as to these.
The hon. Gentleman made a tactical mistake when he implied that there was lack of concern among Conservative Members who represent London constituencies. When I finish the fourth Adjournment debate today, I shall go to my advice bureau in Acton—the second this week—where I shall deal with housing problems, just like the hon. Gentleman. I know that Conservative colleagues who represent London seats are as committed to tackling their constituents' problems as is the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the M11. The Government have taken on board the implications for local residents of major road improvement schemes. I have had discussions with local councillors about the implications for the council's housing programme of having to accommodate some of the households that will be displaced by the Department of Transport's road scheme. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Transport has been in touch with the hon. Gentleman about road scheme issues.
Waltham Forest's housing investment programme allocation of £8.270 million for the current year took account of the council's plans to fund a newbuild scheme to assist with the decanting programme. The allocation represented 92.5 per cent. of the council's 1984–85 allocation, when it had been advised to plan on the basis of receiving at least 80 per cent. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that previous HIP allocations had also taken account of the council's plans.
For 1986–87 the council's recently announced allocation of £7.716 million will allow the council to continue with the decanting programme. I understand that development of the Sinnot road site has been delayed, but another site already started at Netley road includes 67 general purpose dwellings to assist in the decant programme. Decisions on the timing to undertake housing schemes are entirely for local authorities, in the light of available resources and local housing needs.
I am satisfied that, within the resources available to London as a whole, housing capital allocations to Waltham Forest borough council have had full regard to local housing needs. I can confirm that special account was taken of the council's plans to develop two newbuild housing schemes to assist with its decanting programme associated with major road schemes in the borough.
The hon. Gentleman said that, to tackle the housing problems in his constituency—I accept that there are 721 housing problems there—there must be increased public expenditure. He set to one side the role of the private sector in helping to tackle such problems. There are now 3 million more owner-occupiers than when we came to office. If it is possible to develop policies that bring owner-occupation within the reach of more people, pressure on local authorities is reduced, and they can concentrate their resources on people for whom owner-occupation is not an option.
The hon. Gentleman should consider the wide range of schemes that we have introduced such as low-cost home ownership and homesteading. He will find that we have taken pressure off local authorities by encouraging people who have traditionally looked to the local authority for a solution of their housing problems to look elsewhere and to adopt a form of tenure which most of them want.
There has been no mortgage famine. Indeed, there has been ready availability, and land has been available for builders. We have been able to bring owner-occupation within the reach of more people. We have encouraged local authorities to have partnership schemes with private developers. Some local authorities are just sitting on land hoping that, one day, a Government will give them enough money to develop it so that they can build council houses for rent.
Some of the more enlightened authorities have said that they should make that land available to the private sector for low-cost home ownership, but insist that, in the first instance, the homes are offered either to sitting council tenants or to people on their waiting lists. If they adopt that approach, that will not increase public expenditure. Indeed, it will reduce it because they will receive capital for the land. Such an attitude will help them to make real progress with their housing problems. If a tenant buys a new house, the authority has the advantage of a re-let; if it is sold to someone on the waiting list, the pressure on the list is reduced. I did not detect any understanding of the role of the private sector in what the hon. Gentleman said.
Some 62 per cent. of tenants in the private sector are owner-occupiers. If we concentrate on public sector stock and public expenditure only, we are not adopting a total approach to housing. It is right to harness the energy of the private sector to try to tackle the problems outlined by the hon. Gentleman.
Some difficult council estates are being transferred to the private sector, with sitting tenants who retain all their rights, such as the right to buy. The private sector has transformed those estates and made them satisfactory places in which to live. Both Labour and Conservative authorities have adopted that partnership approach so as to make faster progress in tackling housing problems.
§ Mr. CohenI am aware of the role of the private sector. Indeed, I mentioned that improvement grants should be expanded, not blocked as new improvement grants have been since August 1984. If the Minister is so keen on giving the private sector support, he should provide additional money so that the improvement grants can be reinstated.
Many of the schemes to which the Minister referred, such as improvement for sale, are mostly cosmetic because those who most desperately need housing just cannot afford them, even with the discounts being provided. The 722 result is that many of the homes allocated under those schemes are left empty, and that makees those in need of homes very angry.
§ Sir George YoungWhen we took office in 1979, the figure spent on improvement grants by local authorities was £90 million. Two years ago, that figure rose to £900 million. It has now settled at between £400 million and £500 million. That is substantially more than was being spent by the previous Administration. The hon. Gentleman is being somewhat selective in his criticism.
On improvement for sale and other initiatives such as homesteading, local authorities must ensure that those to whom homes are allocated will modernise and occupy them quickly. My borough imposes quite tough conditions on when people must begin work if they wish to continue to be eligible for improvement grants and for the delayed start of mortgage repayments.
The hon. Gentleman did not pay sufficient attention to the role of the private sector in tackling housing problems in his constituency. He mentioned the problems of tenants in getting local authorities to effect repairs. He will be pleased to know that, as from 1 January, local authority, new town and housing association tenants will have a right to repair. An item of work that costs between £20 and £200, such as repairing a cracked cistern or a leaking pipe, can now be paid for by the tenant, who will be reimbursed by the authority. That is a worthwhile extension of the many rights that we have given to tenants since we took office.
Leaflets will be available shortly to local authority tenants. We can give the hon. Gentleman a supply of them for his advice bureau if he would like that. The work may be carried out more quickly under the new proposals than if tenants continue to rely solely on local authorities.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned renovation of housing stock. We have a much clearer picture of the position since we undertook a survey, with the help of some authorities, earlier this year. We were especially grateful for the cooperation of Waltham Forest in that exercise. The borough council is an enthusiastic supporter of our policy to improve private sector stock. The housing strategy that it has drafted for next year shows that it proposes to continue with that support. Indeed, almost 30 per cent. of its bid for housing capital resources has been planned for improving the private sector stock.
It is important that improvement grants, which are not as readily available as they were, should be targeted by the local authority at those who can least afford to pay for the repair and improvement of their property. The council newbuild programme continues to give support by providing accommodation for those with special needs, the elderly, disabled and others who are not able to cope easily for themselves.
The hon. Gentleman implied that the allocations announced yeaterday were inadequate. Whatever figure we had announced, the Opposition would have found it inadequate, but we had to bear in mind the Government's overall economic strategy, and the need to keep control of public expenditure and keep down inflation.
London's share of the national allocation of £1.5 billion is 30 per cent. That is recognition of the special housing needs of the capital. In addition, the boroughs can invest a worthwhile proportion of the receipts that they generate through the sale of council houses to tenants and through sales of vacant housing and land. The abolition of the GLC 723 means that the allocation that the GLC would have had has been redistributed to the London boroughs, which will also have the spending power associated with the GLC's capital receipts.
The London borough of Waltham Forest, within which the hon. Gentleman's constituency lies, has received an allocation for next year of £7.716 million. That represents 91.4 per cent. of the council's 1984–85 allocation and fully honours the commitment given to all local authorities in December of last year that they could plan their forward housing programmes on the basis that their allocations for next year would be at least 70 per cent. of their initial allocations for 1984–85. As I say, Waltham Forest has capital receipts which it has built up and it can augment the allocation by using that money.
In total, these resources can be used by the council to meet what it judges to be local housing needs and priorities, including those in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The council's housing strategy seems to contain the right priorities—eliminating unfit housing, increasing the supply of accommodation for special needs, upgrading unsatisfactory housing, securing additional local authority accommodation to meet general housing needs, such as decanting, and improving the environment of housing areas.
The specific problems include an aging stock with disrepair in the private sector, particularly in the pre-1919 stock. The council also has disrepair in some of its own buildings and a poor external environment to some of its estates. There are 9,300 unfit dwellings in the borough, with 5,700 not having internal WCs or proper bathrooms. It also has the problem of 570 houses affected by the problems of pre-stressed reinforced concrete dwellings. We have made provision to help local authorities with difficulty in meeting their obligations under the Housing Defects Act 1984.
724 I was involved in an initiative not long ago in the hon. Gentleman's borough. I refer to the Walthamstow neighbourhood home improvement agency, which is in the neighbouring constituency to his. Two years ago I opened, in conjunction with the London borough of Waltham Forest and the Anglia building society, the Walthamstow neighbourhood home improvement agency, the object of which was to provide advice and help to poor, elderly owner-occupiers in an area of the borough covering more than 4,000 homes.
That was run on a non-profit-making basis, giving free advice, and it made a big impact in the area. Indeed, the house from which the scheme is run was itself improved and converted, giving people living in the area an idea of the potential of their own homes. With a commitment by the local authority to improvement grants and the availability of top-up mortgages from the building society, that is the sort of partnership scheme that the Government want to see, and I know that other similar initiatives are being considered.
From my Department's urban housing renewal unit, £50 million of the resources available for housing next year is being made available to assist local authorities to carry out schemes to be identified and agreed in discussion with my Department. We hope that there will be a constructive meeting with Waltham Forest to ascertain whether there is some scope for part of the £50 million to be spent in Waltham Forest to turn round some of the difficult estates.
I do not underestimate the problems facing the hon. Member for Leyton and his constituents. We are doing what we can for Waltham Forest, but we believe that more progress will be made more quickly if we broaden the horizon and harness the resources of the private sector rather than concentrating exclusively on a public sector solution.