Housing

HC Deb 01 July 1985 vol 82 cc34-71 4.12 pm

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

I beg to move, That this House deplores the Government's very substanial reduction in housing public expenditure which has occurred in the past five years, and which has resulted in considerable hardship and indeed misery for so many unable to be offered rented accommodation; also recognises that much essential improvement and major repair work cannot be undertaken by local authorities, or owner-occupiers on limited means because of the cuts; and calls on the Government to reverse its disastrous housing financial policies and to allow local authorities and the voluntary sector the means to build the necessary accommodation as well as allowing urgent improvement work to be carried out in both the public and private sectors. This debate takes place against the background of an acute housing crisis. A large number of families and single people are now without adequate and secure accommodation, and many are forced to live in substandard housing and often overcrowded conditions. Homelessness is continually increasing.

In London alone, bed and breakfast accommodation is costing the boroughs £1 million a month — a sum that would be sufficient to pay off loan charges on 3,000 new council dwellings. In England and Wales, 1.25 million homes are now unfit for human habitation, and 1 million homes lack one or more basic amenities such as an inside toilet, bath or hot water. Across the country 2.5 million homes are seriously affected by damp, and 3 million homes each require immediate repairs that will cost £2,500 or more.

Between 1979–80 and 1985–86—the current financial year — there has been a 68 per cent. reduction in real terms in housing public expenditure, from £4,522 million to £1,431 million. The figures for central Government subsidies to local authority housing show that in 1980–81 —a year after this Administration came into office—the amount spent was £1,423 million. In the current financial year, it is just £400 million, a reduction of more than £1,000 million. Those figures explain why there is now a housing crisis and so much housing hardship and misery, so much of which stems from the lack of rented accommodation.

Ministers are fond of saying—we shall no doubt hear the same today—that cuts took place under the previous Labour Government. I do not deny that. There were cuts, of some of which I would not approve. It is unfortunate that the housing programe was adversely affected during the last two or three years of the previous Administration, but one should compare those cuts with the cuts made under the present Government. There can be no doubt that the present cuts go much, much deeper. Moreover, they are part of the philosophy adopted by the Government towards public sector housing.

I have accepted that there were cuts under the previous Labour Government, but it is interesting to note that in 1978 — the last full year of that Government — the number of new public sector starts was more than 107,000.

Mr. Terry Dicks (Hayes and Harlington)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winnick

Not yet. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue for a while longer, especially as a number of hon. Members wish to take part. I shall give way, but not at the moment.

The number of new council dwellings started last year was the lowest in peacetime — 39,500. However, the estimate for the current year is that just under 32,000 new council dwellings will be started throughout the country. When one compares those figures with the 107,400 starts in the last year of the Labour Government, one can understand what I mean when I say that the housing cuts carried out by the present Government go so much deeper than anything that occurred under the Labour Administration. In addition, fewer private dwellings were started last year than in 1978.

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney)

Perhaps I can reinforce and bolster my hon. Friend's already powerful argument. In the last two years of the Labour Administration, the Government persistently overprovided for housing sums that were not taken up and spent on new housing by the predominantly Conservative district and borough councils which existed then.

Mr. Winnick

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who had responsibility for such matters during the last Labour Government. We know of his deep concern on this issue.

Because of Government diktat, local authorities can now spend only 20 per cent. of their capital receipts whereas about two years ago the Prime Minister told us that local authorities should spend on new capital projects. She explained why it was necessary for local authorities to do more. Now not all the money that local authorities raise themselves can be spent. As a result, about £5 billion is frozen at a time when there is such a desperate shortage of adequate housing.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the policy on which the Labour party fought the last election were in operation today there would be no capital receipts at all?

Mr. Winnick

I anticipated the Minister's question. Two points should be made. One, as my hon. Friends and I have asked time and again, is that if it is right for local authority tenants to buy, why is it not right for private tenants? Secondly, under a Labour Administration, there would have been, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has explained, a different approach to housing from that adopted by the Minister and his colleagues.

Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead)

My hon. Friend is aware that there are differences of opinion within the Labour party about the sale of council houses, but those of us who advocated the sale of council houses did so on the basis that new funds would be available for local authorities to spend on new projects. We were arguing that by selling, councils were forgoing the possibility of reallocating accommodation in the future for cash now, but that that cash should be spent on replacing housing stock. Is not one of the deceits of this Government that they adopted that policy and sold it on that basis, but have ratted on that commitment?

Mr. Winnick

My hon. Friend is right. The Minister would be in a stronger position, even allowing for the fact that we all know why private tenants are not allowed to buy, if he said that the Government believe, and have acted accordingly, that council tenants should be able to buy but that there is a responsibility on the Government to make sure that that which is sold off can be replaced. However, as my hon. Friend explained, the Government have done the opposite. They have been keen to sell at a large enough discount to encourage people to buy but, far from trying to ensure that such buildings are replaced, the very opposite has been the Government's policy.

The number of people employed in the construction industry is 300,000 fewer than in 1979. That figure can be compared with the labour force survey for 1983, the last figures that are available. That shows that some 257,000 unemployed people seeking work had been employed, as their last job, in the construction industry. That figure will, I am sure, have increased in the past 18 months to two years.

When I spoke about the Conservative Government's attitude I had in mind a particular point. I had thought it proper to give the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) notice of this, and I believe that he was trying to come to the debate, but perhaps he has been prevented from doing so by various duties. The hon. Gentleman was, during the time of the Labour Government, the Tory spokesman on housing and construction. He gave an interview to the National Builder in which he was asked a number of questions on the basis that his party could win the May 1979 election, as it did. He is quoted as saying: Thus, in our view, local authority activity should be directed towards helping those sections of the community that by definition cannot help themselves. The emphasis will be on sheltered housing for the elderly, special housing for the disabled and for the very poor who just cannot manage … the need is not there. In many respects, the hon. Gentleman is to be commended, because he was as frank as one could wish. In the main, Ministers do not use such frankness. The hon. Gentleman set out what is now Conservative Ministers' philosophy—local authority dwellings are not necessary, there is no need for them except for the poorest and the elderly, and the rest can get a mortgage. In essence, that sums up Ministers' attitudes and that is why we are facing such a housing crisis.

It is a myth, and a very dangerous one, that, except for the very poor, the rest of the community can simply get a mortgage and purchase its own accommodation. Owner-occupation has grown, and I welcome that. In the 1960s, the Labour Government took certain steps that assisted people on limited means who could not otherwise obtain a mortgage to get one. We have always been in favour of encouraging people, if they so wish, to become owner-occupiers. What is far from the case is that everyone except the very poor can solve housing problems by going along to the local authority or building society and obtaining a mortgage.

For the first-time buyers, the average dwelling price in Greater London last year was £32,635. The average advance was over £26,000. In the west midlands, as one would expect, the figures are lower. The average first-time price was £18,429, but the average advance was over £16,000. To quote building society statistics, the average income of people who have borrowed for the first time in 1984 in London was nearly £13,000. In my part of the world, the west midlands, it was £8,555.

Even when one takes into consideration that there may be two incomes in the household—often, although the wife's income is taken into account, when the children come she may stop working — and even if one leaves aside, as I have no intention of doing, the level of unemployment, particularly in the west midlands, it must be pretty obvious to Ministers, especially the Prime Minister, that a large number of people are simply not in a position to purchase. They are not earning enough to get an advance so that they can afford to purchase in London or the west midlands. They do not earn that sort of money now, and Ministers are of course saying that there should be low, or no, wage increases.

A large number of people, whom I would not describe as very poor and who manage to get by as long as they are permitted to work by the Government, have a fairish income. However, they do not have the sort of income that would qualify them for a building society mortgage. They do not have sufficient income to pay off such a mortgage over 20 or 25 years, pay rates on the property and keep it in full repair and maintenance. That is my point.

Therefore, there remains a clear need for rented accommodation. That need will not be met by the private sector. It is another myth that if one allows the private sector to revive through encouragement, it will meet demands. It will not, and there is no evidence that it will.

Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West)

Two points need to be made. The hon. Gentleman talks about the private sector, so I shall be interested to hear what he has to say about housing associations, which cater for a real housing need in the areas about which the hon. Gentleman has talked. The other point is that, now that he has told us about people on low incomes, I should be interested to hear about those who are on high incomes but living in municipal accommodation.

Mr. Winnick

That is another one of the Tory myths. We all know about Tory propaganda about a Rolls-Royce and perhaps even a Daimler as well outside the council house, owned by people who are going on holiday four times a year to all parts of the world. Perhaps I am naive, but I had believed that at least that Tory myth was no longer in circulation. However, the hon. Gentleman has shown us that, when it comes to council houses and tenants, the Tory mind has not changed much.

The Minister boasted about shorthold tenancies, but is there any evidence that that is doing anything to satisfy housing need in London or elsewhere? Why are so many people now in bed and breakfast accommodation? Why are local authorities spending the sums that I quoted at the beginning of my remarks if shorthold tenancies are the solution? The truth is that people will invest in the private property market only to the extent that they get a rate of return that they would not get elsewhere. They have no wish to provide accommodation at the level of rents that ordinary people can afford.

Mr. Allan Roberts (Bootle)

Perhaps my hon. Friend will ask the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) whether he suggests that quite wealthy people who live in council housing which is now unsubsidised and from which the Sefton council makes a profit should move into owner-occupation so that they may receive large subsidies and income tax relief from the Exchequer.

Mr. Winnick

My hon. Friend has asked an interesting question to which I am sure the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) will want to respond. The hon. Gentleman made a valid point about housing associations, but they form part of the Opposition's argument because, like local authorities, their funds have been cut so deeply that they cannot do their job.

In the borough of Walsall, no contracts for council dwellings have been entered into since 1979. Nor is there any hope under existing policies that there will be any such contracts. I ask the House to imagine a borough of the size of Walsall with no contracts having been entered into for six years because the council simply has not sufficient finances. Land owned by the council is being sold because it cannot be utilised by the authority. A great deal of work needs to be undertaken on older and mainly pre-war dwellings in the borough. Again there is not the money to do it.

In passing, I mention the Rosehill estate in Willenhall in my constituency. It was built before the second world war. The tenants have waited for years for their properties to be modernised. The conditions there are terrible.

I have written to the Minister a number of times asking whether he would be willing to meet a deputation from the Rosehill estate. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has replied saying that it is not a matter for him. His view is that it is purely a matter for the local authority. The local authority tells me that it simply has not the cash to carry out the necessary work. It so happens that the tenants intend to come to London this month on a deputation and to go to Marsham street. I wonder whether the Minister will be courteous enough to see them — or will he remain indifferent to their plight and, even though they have travelled down from my constituency, will not spend some time putting forward his point of view and listening to theirs?

I have mentioned my area, but Birmingham has nearly 25,000 council dwellings in need of modernisation and major repairs. Only 40 are being attended to this year, again because of the financial crisis.

Local authorities have the added headache of putting right the defective prefabricated concrete dwellings in their ownership. The work has to be done out of the annual housing investment programme. On top of all their other difficulties and headaches, local authorities have to rectify the defects in concrete dwellings that require urgent action. No extra money has been provided. The Minister says again that it is up to the local authorities.

I do not deny that there was a substantial increase in the money provided to owner-occupiers for improvement grants. It helped many people buying their own homes who in many cases would not have had enough to improve them. However, once the Tories won the general election of 1983, they were not interested. Today, as a result, we have a large number of defective houses whose owner-occupiers, many of them pensioners, do not have the means to put them right and to whom local authorities say, "We are sorry, but we have not the cash to give you improvement grants." What sense is there in that? I remind the House that when the necessary work is eventually undertaken, it will be much more expensive. I cannot understand why the Government will not give owner-occupiers on limited means the chance to put their houses right and to make them adequate for the coming winter. But, again, there is no response from the Government.

In the last published data on housing investment in different countries, Britain is seen to spend just 2.1 per cent. of its gross national product on housing. That figure has to be compared with 6.1 per cent. in West Germany, 5.7 per cent. in France, 5.6 per cent. in Italy and more than 5 per cent. in the Netherlands. It is difficult to find an advanced country spending as little as we do on housing investment.

I suppose that in some respects today's debate is a trailer for the inquiry into British housing whose report is to be published on 25 July. That inquiry was under the chairmanship of the Duke of Edinburgh. There has been one leak concerning a possible recommendation about mortgage interest relief. But it would be unfortunate if that was the only attention that the media gave to that report. I have not seen the report, of course, but I have seen the evidence to the inquiry. That shows the damaging state of British housing and the need for the type of investment about which I have been speaking.

When the report is published, it should provide the opportunity for a debate not merely in the House but in the country and an awareness of what needs to be done, of the terrible condition of so much of our housing stock and of the misery and hardship of so many people who desperately require decent housing.

Mr. Dicks

How does the hon. Gentleman define housing need? Does he differentiate it from housing desire? The very definition often dictates a building programme the cost of which can be extremely heavy on the public purse. Will he define housing need?

Mr. Winnick

The hon. Gentleman is, I believe, the former chairman of a housing authority. I am myself a former member of a housing authority. When, as a Member of Parliament, I undertake my surgeries and when I receive letters from young married couples desperately in need of accommodation who have nowhere to live and no chance of buying their own homes, I understand perfectly what need is. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the huge numbers of people in bed and breakfast accommodation and the many people on housing waiting lists who desperately need accommodation. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that there is little housing need, it shows only too well that he is unaware of what is happening, probably in his own constituency.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton (Fife, Central)

Why should my hon. Friend expect a sympathetic reply from a Government headed by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) who in the last few weeks has been photographed with her husband, Denis, looking at private houses built by Barratts adjacent to Dulwich college at prices of from £350,000 each? Is she in need of housing?

Mr. Winnick

I do not know whether the right hon. Lady is in need of housing, but I know that a great many of our constituents are, including many constituents of Government supporters. It does those constituents no service to try to minimise the need, the hardship and the housing misery that so many of them have to face.

This year marks the centenary of the Royal Commission on working-class housing. Its report 100 years ago revealed the ghastly conditions in Victorian Britain. It may be that some Government supporters believe that those were good days and good times.

I make no apology for repeating in this debate that there are two matters of the utmost importance to ordinary people which, apart from personal happiness and good health, affect their lives more than anything else. The first is the chance to earn a living and the second is to be able to have decent and secure accommodation. The accusation against this Administration is that by their policies they have taken away the opportunity for many people to have jobs and have denied many an opportunity to have proper and adequate homes.

All that we are asking from this side of the House, as we have done on so many previous occasions, is that the Government should allow local authorities to build and modernise the accommodation that is needed. It is no use Ministers coming to the Dispatch Box to say that it is a matter for local authorities. It is futile to argue like that when local authorities like mine and so many others are prevented by Government financial policy from doing what is necessary and from carrying out their statutory responsibility.

How can I criticise my council, which is not under Labour control, for not doing what is essential when all the figures prove that it does not have the means to do so? The responsibility lies with the Government, with the Cabinet, and with those Ministers sitting round the Cabinet table in 1979 and 1980 who made decisions on housing that have caused so much housing hardship. That is where the responsibility lies and that is why it is so important that the matter is debated.

Time and time again Ministers have refused to accept the immense harm that their housing policies are causing. Part of our accusation today is that they have shown at times callous indifference to the housing plight. They are not interested. They boast about the number of dwellings that have been sold in the public sector, but they are completely lacking in interest when it comes to new build, modernising, or assisting now — not before the last general election but since — those owner-occupiers who do not have the means to carry out essential work such as roof repair.

I have no illusions. When I was interviewed by a local radio station about today's debate I was asked if I was likely to convince Ministers. I said, "No, I do not have the power." With all due respect, I do not believe that any of my right hon. or hon. Friends have the power to do that. The Government are blind, dogmatic and indifferent to the sort of problems that we are raising today. I do not believe we shall change Government policy, or that there is any possibility of change until we turn this Administration out, but, as Labour Members, our responsibility to our constituents is to raise these problems, and to use the House of Commons as a forum to explain the hardship and misery of our constituents and the desperate need for more rented accommodation.

4.43 pm

Mr. Michael Latham (Rutland and Melton)

I begin, as always when speaking on housing or building, by declaring a long-standing financial interest in the building industry. I have been employed by a large building company since 1975 and have been connected directly with the industry since 1967. I am also a vice-president of the Building Societies Association, though that is an entirely voluntary and unpaid position.

It is disappointing, but perhaps not surprising, that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has chosen to draft his motion in terms which he knows well will be unacceptable to the House as a whole. We do not debate housing often enough in the Chamber, and it would have been better if he had tried to concentrate today on areas of common ground on which the House collectively could press Ministers, rather than use words such as "deplore", "callous" and "disastrous", which will obviously push up the political barriers and lead to unproductive exchanges of political fire from behind tribal stockades.

Everyone who specialises in housing policy, as the hon. Member does, knows well that the trend, ever since the late Anthony Greenwood's housing White Paper in 1969, has been to concentrate upon improvement work and a steady diminution of rented construction in the public sector. Indeed, our biggest single problem in housing over the next decade will be to find the money to put right many of the structural and social horrors which arose from the mass system building campaigns of 20 years ago, which began with the big council housing drive instigated in 1963 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), and which was continued by the late Richard Crossman and the late Anthony Greenwood until Ronan Point fell down in 1968.

Mr. Allan Roberts

Was there anything wrong with the low-rise housing estates which were built in large numbers during the housing drive that started in 1945? Was there anything wrong with the Welwyn Garden cities and the Wythenshawes? Are those problem council housing estates?

Mr. Latham

I thought that the hon. Gentleman knew more about housing and realised that most of the PRC houses that are causing problems now were built just after 1945. That is exactly what Airey houses were. The hon. Gentleman is showing his ignorance. He normally makes better interventions.

The biggest single period of improvement activity began with Anthony Greenwood in 1969. It was boosted dramatically by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), in the Housing Act 1971. That lasted until late 1973. There was then a further big push between 1982 and 1984, following the 1982 Budget. No doubt all sorts of things can be deplored and condemned under both Governments, but those are the realities, as opposed to the crude polemics. When the hon. Gentleman was talking about 107,000 starts in the public sector in 1978, he did not say that the figure for 1975 was 174,000.

I want now to forget about the regrettable motion and to concentrate on the wider housing scene. The current house building level in the public sector is very low. It follows a trend of sharp and virtually uninterrupted decline since 1975, both in starts and completions. The latest forecast from the National Economic Development Council expects a further decline over the next two years. My view is that the level of publicly rented construction is now so low that we should be giving it more impetus for specialised needs. There should be more activity to build for the elderly and disabled, and especially for those who are living alone. With an aging population and all too many family break-ups, all hon. Members know from their constituency experience that much of the available council housing stock is three-bedroomed family housing unsuitable for the elderly or single people. The private sector has made a contribution in recent years, but it cannot deal on its own with all the specialised needs and there should be more public sector provision.

In regard to improvements, I accept at once that the 1982 scheme of widely available 90 per cent. repair grants was intended as a short-term boost for building and that it led to unsustainable levels of public spending. Nevertheless, the latest trends for improvement work are disturbing. A total of 77,600 buildings were improved with the help of grant or subsidy in the first quarter of this year, a fall of 26 per cent. on the comparable quarter of 1984. Repairs in the private sector showed a 58 per cent. fall. Of course, that reflects the withdrawal of the short-term 90 per cent. grant. Private sector conversions and improvements fell by 44 per cent. I fear that the 1983 imposition of VAT on alterations may be taking its toll, as well as the lengthy queues of grant seekers, many of whom will be disappointed because of the empty coffers of local authorities with their reduced housing investment programmes.

That is why I must express regret yet again to Ministers at the decision implemented as from 1 April to reduce the proportion of their own capital receipts that local authorities can spend in any one year. I am thankful for the small mercy announced last week that there is to be no further moratorium, but I wish that Treasury Ministers would consider the real economy before requiring reductions in capital receipts spending from 40 to 20 per cent., which, incidentally, I voted against.

The real position in the construction industry is that contract work for medium and small firms remains very hard to get and that margins are tight. The large firms have been bidding for medium-sized contracts which they would not have considered a few years ago, and the small reputable builders are being outflanked for domestic repair and improvement work by unregistered traders, some of whom are cowboys, and by no means all of whom ensure that every penny of the tax that they lawfully owe finds its way to the Inland Revenue.

The industry is far from overheated. I am sorry to read that Ministers are still rejecting calls for more construction, on the ground that it would all be carried out by imported plant and would make little contribution towards reducing unemployment. Improvement work, for example, uses little plant and is heavily labour-intensive. It also uses plenty of materials, such as bricks, tiles and guttering, most of which are made by British workers in British factories. It would cost. the Government little, if anything, if local authorities were able to use more of their capital receipts to provide more improvement grants. They already have the money, and a high grant programme would generate considerable activity in the manufacturing sector, which is allied to construction.

Mr. Frank Field

Is it not true that that argument applies also to new build? The Anchor Housing Association, which operates in my constituency, analysed what happened to its expenditure and found that, even for new build, practically all the sums were spent on wages, contributions, tax and national insurance, and that few materials, apart from timber and kitchen equipment, were imported. In looking for a means of stimulating the economy and increasing employment without sucking in imports, should we not pay attention to that aspect of the matter?

Mr. Latham

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's general proposition and have advocated it many times. However, I am concentrating on improvement work, because I believe that that is where the main needs are for our housing stock. I must say reluctantly that I think that the Green Paper on improvement grants, which was produced the other day, is a deeply disappointing document. It is subtitled "A New Approach", but the newest aspect of the approach is that it envisages following these proposals without much public money. The press notice that accompanied the Green Paper said that owners were primarily responsible for their own properties and should receive appropriate help and encouragement in fulfilling that responsibility. Unfortunately, the Green Paper's proposals will result in the appropriate help for most people being nothing. I accept that grants were too widely available in recent years, and there is a strong case for targeting them more to properties that need renovation and to people who need more help. Indeed, the Public Accounts Committee, on which I serve, said so. The proposal in the Green Paper to restrict any mandatory grants or the new discretionary loans to persons eligible for housing benefit is far too harsh a qualification. I agree that more needs to be done to improve the take-up of grants by the elderly and the unemployed. Last year, the second permanent secretary in the Department of the Environment, Sir Peter Harrop, told the Public Accounts Committee that those people were under-represented among grant receivers. It is possible that the new equity-sharing, interest-free loans proposed in the Green Paper will help the elderly, but we all know that many older owner-occupiers do not bother to apply for grants, not only because of the cost of the work, but because they cannot deal with the fuss and bother of having builders about the house. They prefer to put up with unacceptable housing conditions rather than experience the initial disruption that would lead to a better environment. That is a very human reaction, and nothing in any Green Paper can change it, nor should we try to do so against their wishes. I shall outline one simple example of the people who will be excluded from grants under the new arrangements and who are not upper middle class trendies gentrifying Islington. A young and newly married male shop assistant and his hairdresser wife have a combined income of, say, £140 a week. They have not yet started a family. They want to buy a small terraced house in a medium-sized midlands town. This house is just within their financial reach with a joint mortgage, but needs a lot of work to be done on it. They will not be eligible for housing benefit. They may not be able to afford to buy a new house, and under the Green Paper's proposals they will be entitled to no grant to help them to improve the 80-year-old home which they want to buy. Surely such people should receive some help or encouragement. The alternative would be public sector rented housing, if any were available, or the terraced house remaining in an unimproved state and their standard of living deteriorating I should have thought that helping such people who want to help themselves would be a high priority for a Conservative Government. I hope that Ministers will use the extended consultation period, for which the Green Paper provides, to go back to the Treasury to insist upon a wider spread of availability of grants or loans under the new system. The present position will be unreasonably restrictive. It will lead to less work for the industry, a sharp decline in the amount of improvement work and a deterioration in housing stock as a whole. I hope that the White Paper, or Bill that follows the consultation period, will not have the Treasury's fingerprints all over it. It should be directed primarily towards Encouraging the Repair and Improvement of Private Sector Housing", the very words on the front of the Green Paper, and not towards reducing the public sector borrowing requirement. I hope that that section of the Green Paper dealing with cowboy building will be significantly strengthened. The small works sector of building is plagued with fiddles and abuses, which were well revealed by the Director General of Fair Trading in his consultative document in March 1982 and his final report in June 1983. Some atrocious rip-offs take place and there is plenty of shoddy workmanship. To some extent, the public are the authors of their own misfortunes. They have not supported the warranty schemes which have been produced by the Building Employers Confederation or the Federation of Master Builders, preferring to take the lowest price offered by an unregistered trader and sometimes paying the real price afterwards in poor quality work. It is three and a half years since the Director General of Fair Trading suggested that local authorities should restrict improvement grant to work done by reputable firms, and two years since he firmly made that recommendation. It is disappointing that the Green Paper repeats and endorses Sir Gordon Borrie's proposals two years later, but only on the basis that the Government intend discussing them with the building industry and local authority associations. What is there left to discuss? The proposals are clear and are spelt out in the Office of Fair Trading report. Why can we not implement them, as a number of local authorities are already doing? We should be involving the building societies and banks, getting them to ensure that the finance that they extend goes to work performed by reputable traders who pay their taxes and build to a standard that justifies their loan and enhances the value of the house. We should be coming forward with the wider package of consumer protection measures that were recommended two years ago by the Director General of Fair Trading. Those measures included cooling-off periods of at least seven days for double glazing or solar heating contracts signed in people's own homes, and a legal duty that home improvement contracts should be in writing. Such protection is already given for insurance policies and for some forms of credit agreements. It is high time that some action was taken in the home improvements sphere in which contracts of several thousands of pounds may be involved. I hope that Ministers in the Department of the Environment and in the Department of Trade and Industry will act speedily and with determination to protect the consumer in his own home from the wily con man, the unskilled itinerant jobber and the high pressure salesman. I have one final proposal about improvement grants which is radical and would require legislation. Local authorities will always have problems regulating the flow of improvement grant money. When the tap is turned on fiercely, as in 1982, the bath sometimes overflows all over the floor. When it is abruptly turned off, as in 1984, the plug is pulled out as well and the bath runs dry. It took months for local authorities to gear themselves up for the last big push on grants and, by the time things were in full swing, the economic position was changing. We ran into cuts in capital receipts spending, moratoria and retrenchments.

The system of local authority RSG penalties, targets, annual accounting years, and so on will always cause major hiccups in running a long-term improvement drive. As local authorities act largely as financial agents for the Department of the Environment over improvement work, why not transfer this agency work lock, stock and barrel to the building society movement? Why not say, "This year, the Government will allocate, say, £700 million for improvement grant work"? That is about the net income for the building societies in one poor month. Why not say to them, "We shall reimburse you up to that extent plus" — or, if necessary, minus — "a sum towards your administrative costs. You can then advance it for home improvements and top it up, where necessary, with further mortgage advances"? Building societies do not have the same financial constraints as local authorities. They can act more flexibly, are highly respected and deal every day with the public. They are non-profit making and are supervised by the official Registrar of Building Societies.

I commend that proposal to the Government. I point out that this November we may well have a building societies Bill. I believe that radical action of this type would help to give new momentum to the Government's housing strategy. I hope that it will be seriously considered.

5 pm

Mr. Robert C. Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, North)

The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) for having given us this opportunity to debate the nation's serious housing situation.

I am delighted to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), who always speaks with deep knowledge of his subject and with authority and courage. On Friday morning of this week I shall be joining the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) at an open forum on housing, which is being organised by the northern region of the National Housing and Town Planning Council. The secretary of the council, Mr. Birkett, told me this afternoon that, in spite of personal approaches to many Tory Members of Parliament, the Tory Chief Whip and the Tory north regional office, he has not succeeded in getting one Tory Member of Parliament to grace the platform on Friday morning. So much for the confidence of Tory Members of Parliament in their Government's policy.

I do not think that the House will be surprised that I intend to devote the whole of my speech to the housing problems of the city of Newcastle upon Tyne. All the capital figures to which I shall refer will be at constant 1983–84 prices.

The city's capital programme is part of a declining overall budget, such that the reallocation of resources to areas of growing need is not an option that is open to the council any longer. That is particularly the case for housing. Because of the control of capital expenditure by central Government, the city has been unable to meet housing needs since the Government were elected. Since 1980, more than 3,600 houses have been sold, reducing the city's stock to 47,000.

Two problems have arisen from those sales, but I am not complaining about the sale of council houses. The first problem is that the sales have been all—or almost all—in areas of better-quality housing in the more attractive estates, such as the Grange estate in the Gosforth area of my constituency. By September 1983, hardly any flats or maisonettes had been sold, whereas 11 per cent. of our three and four-bedroom council houses and 10 per cent. of our large bungalows had been sold.

Secondly, although those sales have generated capital receipts, the council has been allowed to spend only a portion of this income—let me emphasise that it is its own money—on capital investment in new build or the improvement of present stock. Therefore, it has been impossible to replace lost houses by new investment. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North was right to say that council houses which have been sold should be replaced, and the council should be allowed to build new houses.

I say good luck to all those who have bought their own council houses. They are getting a good buy. In the main, they have lived in the houses for many years and many will probably finish their days in those same properties. I have no time at all for the cant and humbug that council houses should not be sold to sitting tenants. Having said that, councils should have the right to spend the money derived from those sales. The ratepayers have paid for the houses that are being sold, so they should recoup from the sale of the houses and spend their own money, as it were, on improving the existing housing stock, because improvement is needed urgently.

Between 1979–80 and 1983–84, Newcastle city council spent £150 million on capital expenditure, including capital receipts from council house sales. In that period the housing improvement programme allocation from the Government was cut from £31.6 million to £14 million, and it is only £11.2 million in the current year. The Minister does not need to be a mathematician to realise that that is a savage reduction in the housing improvement programme. Capital spending in the past five years was 40 per cent. less than in the previous five years.

Housing takes 70 per cent. or more of the capital programme, and as a result it has taken the brunt of the cuts imposed by the Government. Since 1982–83, we have not been able to build any general housing for rent. I do not recall any period in my lifetime, apart from odd years during the war, when the city council has not been able to build homes to rent. In the last full year of Labour government, the city council completed 1,368 new houses. Last year the figure was nil. In my view, it is a monumental disgrace that any major city should find itself in a position of not being able to build one house to rent.

The rate at which we can undertake major repairs, rehabilitation, and improvements is pathetically inadequate. To maintain the quality of the present stock, 5,000 pre-war houses still need full modernisation, 3.000 pre-war houses need major external repair and 10,000 post-war houses have had no investment in their physical fabric since they were built. Thus, completed moderni.sations—of which there were 650 in 1978–79—were down to 298 in 1982–83, and that has happened in a period of ever-increasing housing need. In 1981–82, there were 75 applications each month from homeless people who were priority cases. The latest figures show more than 90 applications each month. That means that we have 20 per cent. more homeless people now than in 1981–82. No Minister should be proud of that fact.

The same sad story can be told of the elderly. At the start of 1981, there were 2,500 old people on the city waiting list. In April 1984, the figure was 4,000. Those people have no hope of being offered housing in the near, or even in the far, future.

The housing programme of Newcastle, like every other major city, has been mercilessly reduced as a result of the Government's economic policy. Within an increase of 8 per cent. in public expenditure, largely to cover the cost of an added 2 million unemployed, housing expenditure has been cut by 70 per cent.

All areas of the country have been affected, but none so badly as the northern region, which has had savage cuts inflicted year after year in the housing improvement programme allocation. The effect has been devastating. The impact of cuts on the scale suffered by Newcastle, coupled with the reduction in the use of capital receipts —our own money—has been alarming in every type of programme to meet housing needs. I re-emphasise that it is three years since any family housing has been started.

Our programme of sheltered housing, which is so badly needed to get the elderly into the type of homes guaranteed to help their survival through cold winters, has been cut from four units to two units each year. It is more than likely that next year will see no new starts at all. What a devastating future for old people who have served their country and locality well.

The tragic reduction in council house building was, sadly, matched by a reduction in private house building until 1981. The upsurge since then has had only a marginal effect on waiting lists. In Newcastle, more than 8,000 people are wanting council homes for the first time. The council has encouraged — the Minister will be pleased about this — "build for sale" schemes, but they have added only 350 new homes in the city in the last three years.

Like many hon. Members, every weekend I see unhappy people who are desperate for a decent home in which to live, or who plead for help with badly needed repairs. Much of our weekends are taken up with the harrowing misery caused by the actions of the Government.

I ask the Government to increase substantially the level of basic HIP allocation so that housing authorities may respond to the Government's stated priorities of improving housing stock and of providing accommodation for those who cannot afford to buy or for those with special needs.

I ask the Government to introduce a three-year programme of investment so that we may bring to an end the stop-go spending policies which have had such a damaging effect on housing programmes, and not least on the construction industry.

I ask the Government to allow local authorities to be permitted to spend their own capital receipts from the sale of their own assets without any further interference from the Government.

I make those requests even in the face of the Government's latest public expenditure White Paper, for I cannot believe that further cuts in housing expenditure in the public sector are acceptable either to the public of Britain or even to the vast majority of Conservative Members. I can well understand why not one Tory Member wishes to travel to Newbiggin-by-the-Sea on Friday of this week to defend the Government's shameful housing record.

5.13 pm

Mr. Richard Ryder (Mid-Norfolk)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on initiating the debate and on the way in which he moved the motion, but I must at the outset take him up on the point that he made about first time buyers, because that issue is constantly being faced by the Government. I had hoped to hear some advice from him about the way in which Labour Members would deal with it were they in government, but alas such advice was not forthcoming.

The Government's policies which the hon. Gentleman attacked are based mostly on extending freedom of choice and competition in the housing market. I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall, North on assisting the process of extending competition and broadening freedom of choice, for he supported the House Buyers Bill in December 1983, of which I was a sponsor. That measure, the promoter of which was the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), was designed to break the solicitors' monopoly on conveyancing and to reduce conveyancing costs. Since then, according to the Consumers Association, conveyancing costs throughout the country have fallen by 30 per cent., despite protestations in December 1983 from the Law Society and many solicitors that conveyancing prices were not too high.

Much else has happened in the interim. A consequence of the introduction of the House Buyers Bill was a commitment from the Solicitor-General, reaffirmed by the Prime Minister in the House on 20 December 1983, that the Government would bring forward legislation to enable solicitors in banks and building societies to undertake conveyancing.

Since December 1983 we have had a rearguard action from the Law Society, suggesting that conflicts of interest would arise, if solicitors in banks and building societies were enabled to undertake conveyancing. The Law Society and many solicitors overlook the fact that the legal profession is already riddled with conflicts of interest. For example, solicitors often act for the borrower and the building society. Moreover, solicitors often receive commissions from building societies for advising clients to invest their money with them.

It is sheer hypocrisy, therefore, for solicitors and the Law Society to mount this rearguard action on their own behalf and to claim that conflicts of interest should prevent the Government from introducing legislation originally promised by the Solicitor-General and later reaffirmed by the Prime Minister.

The Law Society's rearguard action has been taken seriously by me. Until recently I had an open mind on the subject, but that has been closed by two recent speeches, one by the Director General of Fair Trading and the other by Professor Julian Farrand, the chairman of the conveyancing committee established by the Lord Chancellor. Both speeches were made at the Building Societies Association conference in Eastbourne, a town ably represented by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction. I am sure that my hon. Friend does not need reminding of the content of those speeches, but for the benefit of hon. Members who may not have heard them I shall quote briefly from them.

Sir Gordon Borrie, Director General of Fair Trading, said: I am sure, for example, that house purchase would be much more convenient for the buyer if a building society were allowed by new legislation to offer not only loan finance but also various other related services such as surveying and conveyancing under one roof. If building societies (or some of them) chose to develop 'one-stop shopping' for housing in this way it will also lead to greater competition with others who provide such services and this should benefit house buyers whether they opt for 'one-stop shopping' or not because competition from building societies will keep everyone on their toes.

Mr. Ashby

I have no interest to declare, because, as a barrister, I am not allowed to convey property. That is solely within the province of solicitors. Is my hon. Friend aware that he is just substituting one monopoly for another and that there will be no protection for purchasers if building societies are permitted to convey property? Has he considered whether allowing building societies to convey property is in the best interests, not of the wealthy — they will always have solicitors — but of the most vulnerable, namely, the general run of people who go to building societies?

Mr. Ryder

I am grateful for the intervention of my hon. Friend, who is a barrister, not a solicitor, and knows a great deal about the subject. I shall deal with that matter in my closing remarks, because the Consumers Association has just completed a survey which shows that the reverse is true.

Professor Julian Farrand also spoke at the Building Societies Association's annual conference in Eastbourne. Professor Farrand's committee has reported on whether the solicitors' conveyancing monopoly should be broken. He said in Eastbourne: I would have thought that logically the practice rule prohibiting solicitors acting for vendor and purchaser in a conveyancing transaction, with its list of exceptions, should apply equally to solicitors acting for lender and borrower—for mortgagor and mortgagee. In so far as it does not apply, then I think the Law Society is on weak ground in suggesting that there might be unsurmountable conflicts of interest, if building societies offer this integrated house buying service. I stress that I had an open mind on this subject until those two speeches were made. The fact that they came from the Director of Fair Trading and Professor Farrand — probably the leading authority on land law — has convinced me that it would be a great mistake if the Government were not to maintain the commitment made by the Solicitor-General and the Prime Minister.

It seems that the Government are still considering what legislation to introduce. There is a real risk that the Law Society and its friends have managed to convince some Ministers—I dare say not all—that it would be unwise to introduce legislation. Yet I hope that legislation to enable solicitors in banks and building societies to undertake conveyancing will he introduced in the next Session, so that the promises will be kept.

I hope that the legislation will ensure that a code of practice is drawn up so that no potential conflicts of interest arise. People can consult solicitors about their mortgages if they wish to have independent advice. If they wish to pay more money for the independent advice of solicitors who are not employed by banks or building societies, they are free to do so.

The recent survey to which I referred in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) showed that only 11 per cent. of home buyers consult solicitors about mortgages. There is no reason why in future they should not consult solicitors independently of the building societies and the banks.

If I believed that legislation would reduce freedom of choice and competition, I would oppose it. If I believed that it would reduce the number of banks and building societies, I would oppose it. If the Director of Fair Trading were against the legislation, I might also be against it. None of those conditions applies. That is why I hope that legislation will be introduced in the next Session to help first-time buyers and home owners who, on average, move once every seven years. In my constituency such legislation would be of great assistance to young couples. I shall support such legislation.

5.24 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

Charles Dickens, who had some links with Southwark, wrote "Bleak House". It is no coincidence that the last edition of a newsletter put together by a respected Southwark organisation, the Housing Advice Research Unit, was entitled "Bleak Housing".

This debate is about the prospect of housing for the future. Although the Liberal party does not share the views of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I can say without reservation that the Liberal party and I agree with every word in his motion. The motion states that Parliament should deplore the Government's housing policy. Without exception, the prospect is one of complete darkness, with little relief from a vision of gloom.

There is a comparison which comes to mind between the attitude of the Secretary of State and his cohorts to housing and King Midas. Everything that King Midas touched turned to gold, and he found that that was not satisfactory. The Secretary of State makes a positive decision not to touch most of our deteriorating housing stock. There is an unmitigated chorus all round him from every section of the community while he watches and witnesses everything that he does not touch crumble away. The Minister for Housing and Construction, who is an exponent of the great she-god monetarism, looks down and applauds the market place as the place to assess the validity of Government policy. The Minister should be aware — I believe that he is beginning to get the message—that down there in the market place hordes of people are looking up and asking, "What about us—the homeless and the badly housed?" As the Minister will know, bad housing is not only a problem in Southwark and Bermondsey. This week, our eyes are focused on Brecon and Radnor, which I visited last week. On a council estate in Crickhowell, I called on a lady with six children, whose husband must work away in Wigan for six days a week because he cannot get a job locally. Her house is in appalling condition, and she would like to move, but Brecknock district council has no alternative accommodation to offer. Therefore, she must bring up her children in poor accommodation.

The premise from which those of us who oppose the Government's housing policy start is that it is fundamentally misconceived, because it derives from an economic policy that is fundamentally wrong. It does not do what the House should accept should be the criterion for housing policy — meet the housing needs of the British people.

The construction industry has suffered especially from the Government's fiscal and financial policies. Since the Government came to power in 1979, there has been a long series of sales of public assets, which bring in billions of pounds a year, and the right-to-buy legislation has produced the massive sale of council housing, which is also bringing in billions of pounds a year. It is the wrong time to cut, because now that we have this money we should be funding expenditure on housing needs. It is no good watching the crack in one's wall get bigger and bigger, and saying, "I cannot afford to borrow now, but I might be prepared to do so later." After about six years, that crack may be irreparable and the house may be falling down. The Government should follow the advice that is given to them from many quarters and increase their public sector borrowing, put that money into housing, and give us the housing infrastructure that we need.

The Minister will have seen the report published by the Building Employers Confederation a couple of weeks ago, which made it clear that such a policy would not be inconsistent with other things that the Government would have us believe they want. Research shows that investment in building would offer the Government better value for money than the tax cuts that the Chancellor of the Exchequer continually promises, but which no one believes can be delivered, and challenges Government assumptions that the cost per job would be prohibitively high.

The research shows — the figures are important, because the Minister always argues about figures—that £500 million per year spent on building over five years would create 55,000 jobs at a cost to the PSBR of £198 million per annum, or £3,600 per job, whereas a £500 million per annum stimulus in the form of tax cuts would create only 20,000 jobs at a cost to the PSBR of £278 million per annum, or £13,900 per job. One does not have to be a mathematician, let alone an Isaac Newton, to realise that, on the figures produced, the Government's policies are entirely misconceived.

We hope, therefore, to hear today that the Government are beginning to think again. We hope perhaps to hear that they will respond to the Audit Commission's report on capital spending, which made it clear that the restraints on local authorities, preventing them from spending the money that they have raised, are a misguided policy.

The Secretary of State for the Environment said that he welcomed the report of the Audit Commission and then, with bland understatement, went on to say: The Commission has drawn attention to flaws in the present system which the Government had already identified". —[Official Report, 8 May 1985; Vol. 78, c. 786.] The flaws are so enormous that I hope the Government will accept that the system must be changed in the coming year. Local authorities, as one of the three strands of those responsible for building housing, need the money to spend to meet the demand that still exists for rented accommodation in the public sector. I ask the Government to accept that they have a duty to each of the three strands, the public sector, the private sector, and the voluntary sector — the housing association sector through the Housing Corporation. As I said earlier, I hope that the Government have already begun to respond to that duty.

There was a report in a journal that, after a meeting that the Minister and his colleagues held with representatives of the voluntary sector in May about homelessness, the Ministers appeared to be alarmed; they appeared to be rattled by the severity of the problem. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will respond today to some of the points put to him at that meeting. In particular, I hope that he will say that his Department will support the proposals to give the Land Registry the ability to draw attention publicly to empty property in the private sector—that is where most empty property is—so that, with a publicity campaign supported by the Government, it can be opened up for use. I accept that the Minister is concerned about the enormous amount of unused empty property. I hope that he will do more than issue the circulars that he has issued since he became Minister, and will attack the problem of the 500,000 empty homes in the private sector which could be used without the expenditure of a great deal of effort and money, because they are already available.

I ask the Minister to say today that he will follow that proposal, and others, and perhaps do something further about lifting restrictions on mini housing association grant, as well as requiring local authorities to keep a register of empty properties. I ask him also to impose on local authorities a duty to consider the use of empty property. The position is desperate. We need to use all the empty properties that are available if we are to begin to solve the problem of homelessness, which is particularly acute in the cities and among the young.

Mr. Allan Roberts

The Minister has removed restrictions on mini-HAG without making an extra penny available through housing associations grants or bringing empty properties into use. I do not altogether agree with the hon. Member that all the empty properties in the private sector can be brought into use without any expenditure. The expenditure required is less than is needed to build new houses or to improve and renovate old houses, but extra money is needed, and the Minister's statement is without any real value unless he makes extra money available for mini-housing association grant for empty properites.

Mr. Hughes

Not only do I agree with the hon. Member; it has been the underlying theme of the last three announcements about housing: the inner-city action teams — co-ordination but no more money; the mini-HAG changes — no more money; and the last inner-city initiative for bringing local authority housing back into use — new scheme, no money. That does not show any great commitment so far, and I accept what the hon. Gentleman said.

In addition to trying to use empty property, we have to look after property which is in a bad state of repair. We gather that the Green Paper will not now result in legislation in the coming Session. Once again we have a statement of policy without the provision of more money. Indeed, we shall see a reduction in the money provided for home improvement. That is a bad and misguided policy, for as the condition gets worse the amount of money needed becomes greater.

There should be requirements for basic standards of habitation. In the private sector there should be a system of mandatory grants. Means testing for unfit owner-occupied property would deter applicants and not be consistent with the aim of ensuring the survival of our housing stock. I accept that money is tight, but we have to look at the greater requirement, which is to ensure that there are homes fit for people to live in, and more fit rather than less fit in the future. The Government's policy will not achieve that aim.

All homes should have safe and adequate wiring as a condition of payment of part of the mandatory grant. Action must also be taken with regard to unfit unoccupied homes. I should like the Minister to consider mandatory action by local authorities, offering owners the choice of taking action themselves—there are parallels already in housing legislation—or having action taken by the local authority and a charge being made to the owner. There are parallels and precedents, and I ask the Minister to extend the provision beyond what is now provided by legislation.

The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) referred to the housing associations and Housing Corporation sector. I hope that the Minister will respond today to the Housing Corporation's corporate plan, which was published two weeks ago. I would also welcome some comments from him on the report of the working party set up by the Institute of Housing, in which local authorities and housing associations took part. The Government have said that they wish to decrease municipal housing and thereby enlarge the voluntary sector, but we need an increase in municipal housing and in the voluntary sector too. Therefore, the housing associations and the Housing Corporation need more money. It is not possible to support their good work—which they have proved they can do —without making more money available. I do not mind whether it comes from the finance houses, the banks or the building societies, as opposed to the Government kitty, but it must be made available.

Ministers have received representations about money for areas such as the London docklands. Unless money is provided now, the private sector — in most cases at prices well beyond the range of local people—will take up the land and space available, and the opportunities for large-scale housing association developments for rent for the local community, co-operatives, and so on, will be lost, and, once lost, will not return.

There are more than 100,000 people waiting to move from one local authority to another within London, either because their families or their jobs have moved. I ask the Minister to help the local authorities in every way he can to provide a much more effective system of nomination and transfer. The system has not been working well. There are many examples of delays. When people make requests to move, they should be considered quickly and efficiently, enabling them to occupy properties which would otherwise remain empty.

I expect that within the next two weeks the Local Government Bill will be coming back to this House. That is, of course, the Bill by which the Government intend to abolish the Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils. The Minister knows that a key provision of that Bill removes the rights which at present are vested in London local boroughs and which enable them to enforce as against the GLC the repair and renovation of the housing stock which was transferred from the GLC to the boroughs. That transfer mostly took place in 1981, though in the case of Tower Hamlets it occurred only today.

Southwark has 23,877 former GLC properties, most of which are in my constituency. The GLC intended to spend £128.5 million on renovating some of those homes, most of which are flats, on appallingly run-down estates. The sum allocated to Southwark for that work this year is £24.9 million and for 1986 it is £24.1 million. Those sums are inadequate. The Government should honour the word of a previous Secretary of State for the Environment who promised that those properties would be made fit to live in. Estates, such as the Tabard garden estate, the Draper estate, the Rockingham estate, the Alvey estate and others along the Old Kent road and around the Elephant and Castle, are in an appalling state and require renovation. The Minister is aware of the condition of those properties, and he must guarantee that the repairs will be done.

I beseech the Government to reconsider their London housing policy before they steamroller people with their proposals to abolish the GLC and forget that people's lives, homes and children would be affected.

The Minister knows that one of the key problems in Southwark is that there is no new public sector housing. Land is being developed apace in the docks. We must ensure that the price of the land, whether for private sector housing association or local authority development, is such that it will provide the opportunity to meet the needs of the local community. It is wrong that along the river two-room flats are being built at a cost of £250,000, while there are pensioners whose heating systems do not work and other people who have nowhere to live.

Resettlement centres, such as the Spike centre at Camberwell, will close soon and the single homeless will have to go to the local authority to be housed. The mentally ill will be returned to Southwark, from places such as Darenth park, to be rehoused. Unless more housing is provided, such needs will not begin to be met.

I recall that a previous Conservative Government accepted the premise that we should be building a country fit for heroes to live in. The Macmillan Government continued building so that we could house people belonging to this country. I ask the Minister to accept that it is now his duty and that of the Government to build and provide houses fit for ordinary people to live in. He must fulfil that obligation.

5.42 pm

Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on initiating this debate on housing. I represent an outer city constituency with inner city problems. Those problems are dominated by housing.

One must first establish the size of Birmingham's problem. The Labour administration in the city of Birmingham has no doubt that housing is a major catastrophe. It has spent a not inconsiderable sum of money on informing every householder and municipal tenant of the size of that problem. It has issued a glossy brochure and other informative literature which show that the Government allowed the city to spend about £70 million this year on housing, whereas the problem can only be tackled by the expenditure of £220 million per year for the next 10 years. It is not surprising therefore that some of my constituents have written to me to ask where the balance of the money will come from and why the Government will not fork out the finance necessary to solve the city's housing problem.

A breakdown of where the expenditure is needed shows that some is required in my constituency. Where is the funding to come from? I replied to my constituents that the Government have allowed £70 million worth of expenditure. However, the Labour administration has said that it ought to spend £220 million. I had to say that no Government could possibly afford £220 million a year.

I may be wrong, as I have not consulted any member of the Labour party or of a possible future Labour Government. Their policy may be to find £220 million for the city of Birmingham for the next 10 years. If Birmingham has problems with its 135,000 municipal dwellings, the same must apply to Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Nottingham and other cities. One could multiply £220 million per year, five, six, seven, 10, 12 or 15 times to accommodate the problem.

I do not disagree with the sum involved, but if it is Labour policy to find that sum I ought to alter the letter that I sent to my constituents and tell them that a future Labour Government will find £220 million for the city of Birmingham for the next 10 years. I look forward to anticipating that that pledge might be forthcoming this evening.

The problem of defective housing affects a number of my constituents. Those problems have been exaggerated and have now been expanded to cover all forms of prefabricated reinforced concrete housing. Constituents anxious to sell properties which they bought 10 or 12 years ago, or more recently, seek advice on how they can sell those properties. There is nothing wrong with the properties. They are structurally sound and have been surveyed by estate agents and building societies and found to be perfect, but they do not attract a mortgage. Those properties are blighted because they come under the heading of PRC-type houses.

Building societies should pay more attention to the problems of those people who are having difficulty selling property in order to move to a bigger home or to relocate somewhere else. It is wrong to blight a type of house because it is constructed in a specific way when all forms of survey show that it is perfectly sound. Building societies should surely treat each application on its merits. If the property is sound, the society should grant a mortgage and encourage people who have invested their savings in that type of property to sell and move, as the owners of more conventional types of housing do. Smith-type housing continues to cause difficulties and the problems in the city have recently been highlighted by the publication of a sizeable report on the structural condition of Smith system housing. Most hon. Members representing Birmingham, and others, will have had copies of that report.

The city council has considered the problem of Smith houses which have been built elsewhere as, to qualify under the Housing Defects Act 1984, the defect must be found nationally. The council reported on the condition of Smith houses in Leicester, Cardiff, Wolverhampton, Sandwell and north Warwickshire—3,228 in all, not all of which have been purchased. The report concludes: It is obvious from the investigations carried out of Smith's houses in the various authorities visited that the inherent defects in the system are manifesting themselves throughout the country. In all cases other than Birmingham, the defects apparent are not associated with 'sulphate attack' to the concrete ground floor. In addition to the defects found elsewhere, Birmingham has a problem with sulphate attack to the concrete ground floor.

The report continues: The defects in all authorities visited relate to inadequate tying in of the panels, inadequate lateral restraint at both first floor level and eaves, thermal and moisture movement, and rusting of the reinforcing handling bars … It would appear that the Minister, when making his decision not to designate Smith's houses, was misled or disregarded the Building Research Establishment's published findings regarding the national level of defects and the future maintenance problems of Smith's houses. I do not necessarily agree with the latter conclusion, but hope that, in the light of that report, my hon. Friend the Minister will examine it to see whether Smith houses can be included in the mandatory scheme. The problem associated with Smith houses is national, so they should qualify under the Housing Defects Act.

Another challenge open to us is the role of future house sales, especially in the municipal sector. Housing sales have tapered off somewhat in the past 12 months or so. Several theories to explain that have been put forward. One is that the threat of unemployment makes people unwilling to embark on the financial risk of a 25-year mortgage. I believe that many tenants simply do not wish to buy, although they have the choice and the funds. The problems of defective housing have served as a warning of what might happen, and people might not wish to live in the same area any longer.

The problem is how to harness the desire to buy and the opportunity to buy. I should like there to be a compulsory system of sale vouchers which would be issued to tenants up to a maximum of 60 per cent. of the value of their house. The vouchers could be used to buy the property presently inhabited or one in the private sector. I hasten to add that the vouchers should not be of the same value when used as a deposit in the private sector. Somebody who qualifies for a 60 per cent. discount to buy a council house should not be able to go along to Barratts and wave a 60 per cent. discount in front of the company. A 60 per cent. voucher on the municipal side might qualify for a 20 per cent. discount on a new house in the private sector.

The advantage of such a scheme is that tenants would go into the private market and vacate a council house, which the local authority would get for a small sum. It might be argued that the scheme would increase public expenditure, but local authorities are still building some houses. A brand new council house and all the infrastructure that it involves costs about £40,000. If a local authority can pick up a council house for just 20 per cent. of its market value, it would have a bargain. I hope that any future housing programme will note the opportunity offered by tenants being given some incentive to purchase houses in the private sector.

The one lesson that we have learnt from the problems of the public housing sector is that it would be folly to build on past mistakes and to think that we can build our way out of difficulties by providing ever more council houses. There is no sign of a growing desire for municipal housing. Even if Birmingham had a great deal of available land on which to build vast estates, it would be foolish to build them and to create in 10 or 15 years the very problems that we face now. Many people who want to buy a house must be encouraged to buy. As a result of the sensible policies that the Government are pursuing, they can afford to buy. Such people are being encouraged by various incentive schemes.

Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury)

Is the hon. Gentleman seriously telling my constituents—the 7,000 on the waiting list and the 9,000 on the transfer list — that they do not really want good and decent council accommodation? Is he seriously saying that they can spend £100,000 on buying accommodation in the area in which they want to live?

Mr. King

The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point, as he has mentioned the housing waiting list. What is a housing waiting list? Every time we learn of a housing waiting list in Birmingham, we hear that it has increased by another 5,000 or 10,000. There is no great number of people sleeping in cars and tents. I accept that we must build more houses, but we must also consider what housing lists are and how they are made up. They are bandied about as evidence of huge pent-up demand for municipal housing, but I think that we should find out what the level of demand is.

Of course people want good, decent housing, but people should be got out of municipal housing into private housing, thus enabling those who must have municipal housing to be catered for. It is no remedy to build more and more of the same. We now realise, to our cost, that that causes even greater difficulty.

5.58 pm

Mr. Allan Roberts (Bootle)

I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has introduced this motion, which I support fully. A debate on these matters is urgently needed as the housing crisis is getting worse throughout the country.

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) has returned, because he challenged the Opposition to give some idea of our assessment of housing need. I am happy to stand by Conservative-controlled Sefton's assessment of need as supplied to the Secretary of State and the Minister for Housing and Construction on the form that the Minister sends out concerning housing needs appraisal. There is a massive shortfall between the resources that the Government have made to their council in Sefton and that council's assessment of need.

The Minister and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington would regard that authority as a paragon of virtue as it is one of the lowest rated metropolitan districts in the country, it has high rents, a profit on its housing revenue account and does not build many council houses. It asked for £21.83 million for this year's capital programme. Incidentally, the Labour members of the council suggested £35 million to meet its housing needs. The council believes, and says so every year, that if it takes notice of what the Government ask and does as it is told, it will be treated well. Its reward for doing as it was told, after asking for £21.83 million, was a HIP allocation of £6 million, hardly enough to provide the housing manager with pocket money to deal with the environmental problems that my constituents face on their council housing estates, and much less than the Tory authority wanted.

I wish to set my remarks in the context of the housing needs of Sefton, and to refer to the Wates houses in my constituency and how the Conservative council is refusing to implement the Government's Housing Defects Act. I also wish to comment on the building industry in relation to Stockbridge village. I wish to recount the saga of the joint venture scheme — joint venture schemes are supposed to be the answer to everything, according to the Minister for Housing and Construction. This particular scheme is the apple of the Government's eye because the guy running it is none other than Tom Baron who advised the former Secretary of State for the Environment, now Secretary of State for Defence.

Let us look at the HIP bid, the housing needs appraisal produced by the Tory council. I know that these figures are right because of my advice bureaux, the bureaux of Labour councillors in Sefton and letters that I have received. In the light of the housing needs, £6 million is pitiful. In Sefton, in the private sector there are 9,558 dwellings which are unfit, lacking basic amenities or in need of major renovation. If one adds to that figure the public sector requirement, the total is 13,534. On top of that there are 2,773 difficult-to-let council houses.

There are 6,690 vacant properties according to the assessment of need that the Sefton council has produced. Only 273 of those properties are local authority. Some 6,273 are in the private sector, standing empty and in need of council action to force private owners and private landlords to bring them into use or action by the council or housing associations to acquire them. The council and the housing associations cannot act. They have not sufficient money to deal with the properties should they acquire them, nor have they the money to give out: as improvement grants if landlords or private owners wish to apply for them. All that is due to the Government's moratorium on applications for improvement and repair grants, which is imposed on Sefton and other parts of the country. In terms of mandatory grants, the council is still trying to process the 1982 applications that flooded in when the Government opened the floodgates just before the election and then closed them afterwards.

In Sefton there are 7,30l families on the waitling list. The active waiting list is 4,102 because Sefton hives off 3,199 which it terms as householders—people who rent from a private landlord in inadequate conditions because the council does not have the houses to offer them. That waiting list would vastly increase if there was a possibility of a single person or a family not on top priority being offered a decent house.

Mr. Ashby

Will the hon. Gentleman say what the waiting list was 20 years ago and what it was 10 years ago, and tell us just what his council has been doing in the intervening years?

Mr. Roberts

The council has not done a lot because it has been Tory controlled since local government reorganisation. The council has not even knocked down the unfit housing. It has built 200 to 300 houses a year. Since 1978–79 municipal stock has declined because losses through sales and demolition have been greater than additions through new build completion, according to a statement by the Sefton Conservative council. There has been a decline in houses to rent and a growing waiting list.

The waiting list has gone down, however, as a result of reviewing procedures and restrictions introduced by the Sefton Conservative council after local government reorganisation. However, even if one meets some of the demands and needs, the waiting list is likely to grow to fill the gap, because housing aspirations continue to increase as we provide better accommodation. If that was not true, we would still all be living in caves, and I hope that that process will continue. Even the standards and aspirations of the people of Sefton and the rest of the country of five years ago are not being met in the building programme, and the modernisation and improvement programmes.

Mr. Chris Smith

Will my hon. Friend compare the performance of Sefton with that of the London borough of Islington during the 1970s under a Labour council and with a Labour Government, when the housing waiting list was brought down from 15,000 to 7,000, with many families being well and decently housed by a Labour council?

Mr. Roberts

I am sure that that is true. Many other Labour local authorities have met housing need by building decent low-rise council houses for rent, with gardens.

I refer to the families on the Delacre estate in my constituency who have all bought their Wates houses. They come under the provisions of the Housing Defects Act 1984, but those people cannot sell the houses that they purchased because the building societies are refusing to give mortgages. One building society recently told a constituent of mine who bought a house on that estate that they were built for a short period—they do not have a long life—and that the building society will not accept them for loan or mortgage. The problem is that the council is avoiding its obligations under the Government's Housing Defects Act. In a letter to one of the tenants on that estate, the housing director wrote: the Council will not be prepared to re-purchase PRC properties, except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is not the council's policy. One cannot argue with that. The housing director then spells out what are not the provisions of the Act: Flats in PRC buildings have to be re-purchased but, in the case of houses, the main form of assistance will be a Grant to finance repairs and only in specific cases of hardship would consideration be given to re-purchase as a means of assistance. That is not what the Act says, as Mr. Steven Dumbell, who chairs the residents' group in that area, and the rest of the residents, are well aware. The local authority must give an assurance, and seek assurances from building societies, that those properties will have a future and can be sold on the open market. If they cannot be sold, the local authority has a duty to repurchase. I can understand Sefton trying to get out of its legal obligations because the money to repurchase has to come out of the pitiful £6 million, the pocket money that the Government have given to Sefton and its housing investment programme. It does not have the money to repurchase. But it will have to, and it will have to stand by my tenants, who have a right to require that.

I refer to the building industry and Stockbridge village, the one thing that is held up by the Minister as a wonderful example of joint venture schemes, with public money and the private sector, and the private industry, coming together in partnership to provide houses for sale, converting older council houses or mid-1960s council houses.

Let us look at the saga of that joint venture—it is worth looking at. Stockbridge Village Trust is headed by its main investor, Mr. Tom Baron, who is famous for having advised the former Secretary of State for the Environment, now the Secretary of State for Defence, on the building industry. He is at the centre of the terrible web. What is happening and has happened in Stockbridge village can be described only as the unacceptable face of private sector building. Recently a company was employed by the main contractors, none other than Barratt, which is employed by the Stockbridge Village Trust. That company was JGM Company Ltd., which went into liquidation, and a tin of worms was revealed. The managing director is James Gerard Mansfield. The company was employed over two years ago as one of the main sub-contractors on that development. It was given phase four, a contract for the development of houses that have still not been finished, although the company went into liquidation on 17 June 1985. Having made a mess of that contract, the company was awarded a contract called "Pot 15" with 120 houses. The snagging on each house has still to be finished, but the company has gone into liquidation.

The saga started at 4.30 pm on 18 February 1985 when the work force withdrew its labour because of threatened redundancies and threats of violence to their members. The threats of violence resulted directly from the work force objecting to the use of lump labour on the site. It was alleged that if trade union officials and other individuals did not leave the site, legs would be broken, and heads kicked in by unknown people. Subsequently, those unknown people told the work force that they had been approached to carry out the threats. The police have been informed, but so far nothing has happened.

After the withdrawal of labour, a series of meetings took place, involving the employer, J. G. Mansfield Company Ltd, Stockbridge Village Trust, headed by the well known Tom Baron, and representatives of the union concerned. A five-point plan was thrashed out and it was agreed to resume work fully on Monday 29 April. It was said that the 714 men employed on the site as lump labour would be offered direct employment, paying class I national insurance, and that if that were not accepted the appropriate unions and the Department of Employment would be notified, which is what the unions wanted in the first place.

Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South)

The hon. Gentleman will undoubtedly remember Stockbridge village when it was called Cantrell Farm and was an overspill estate for Liverpool. Did he share with me the experience of visiting it before anybody started to renovate it? It looked as if a bomb had hit it. It had a high level of vacancies, an appalling crime rate, shopkeepers would not even open their shops during shop hours, but kept the shutters down and admitted people when they knocked on the door, and there was no other possible alternative but to raze the 3,500 houses and to send their occupants back to Liverpool where they came from. Would the hon. Gentleman have preferred that solution?

Mr. Roberts

I take it that the hon. Lady is defending the threats of violence and lump labour. If that is how she justifies what is happening, why did she not defend miners who were accused of violence on the picket lines? She should listen to all my allegations before she opens her mouth, and then she should decide whether she wants to defend the builders involved.

The meeting also attempted to resolve other problems. The workers and unions presented themselves for work on the appointed day, but work did not resume because the 714 lump workers continued to operate. Other meetings took place, and an agreement was reached between the employer and the union work force to allow the 714 men to finish the work assigned to them and then to work properly, not as lump workers. Everything seemed to be going well and the work force returned to work, when one worker received telephone threats to his wife and children. The threats were reported to the police and the trade union officials, but still nothing has happened.

On Wednesday 5 June 1985, the maintenance manager on the site, Mr. Alec White, who is a member of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians received a message to report to the head office to discuss the work load with the employer. [Interruption.] We are discussing the building industry because without the right sort of building industry, we cannot build the houses that we want. I am also talking about the abuse of public money.

At the meeting, which began at 1.35 pm, the employer, Mr. James Gerard Mansfield, said: Come in Alec, sit down. The first thing I want to tell you is that the environmental health have been on the phone and they reported that there is no asbestos involved. How soon can you get off the site? Mr. Alec White, the UCATT official, replied: Just me like, or everybody? Mr. Mansfield replied: You for starters. I want you off, and I want a new face there by Monday … Think very carefully about going on the sick. I want you off this site. Mr. White said: If you want me off, why don't you sack me? Mr. Mansfield replied If I sacked you the other crowd would be out the gate again. Mr. White said: I don't want nobody out of the gate for me. Mr. Mansfield then said: Think very carefully about this. Think of your wife and kids, in case they have an accident. There are people in this city who will do it, and I am in touch with them, and I have the pound notes. If the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) wants to defend such violence, she should stand up and defend it.

Mrs. Currie

As you challenged me, will you let me reply?

Mr. Speaker

Order. I did not challenge anybody.

Mrs. Currie

rose—

Mr. Roberts

The hon. Lady has already spoken, and she defended establishment violence, which she obviously supports.

Mr. Mansfield continued: I want you off first, followed by Terry Mac, followed by Phil Lang, followed by Arthur White, followed by Frank Durham. They are all trade union officials of either UCATT or the Transport and General Workers Union. Mr James Mansfield, who is employed by the main contractors for the Stockbridge Village Trust, then said that if he sacked the members whom he wanted to sack, he would ensure that they could never work again because he would provide the reasons why they had been sacked to the unemployment office.

Conservative Members may not take those allegations seriously. On Friday 14 June, that company was paid £19,000, and on the following Monday it went into liquidation. Part of that sum was public money, yet the company did not have the courtesy to tell the Stockbridge Village Trust that it was about to go into liquidation, and it has not yet finished the work. That is the unacceptable face of private sector building, which is administered by Mr. Tom Baron, who advised the former Secretary of State for the Environment.

I want answers to some questions. What is the relationship between the trust and that type of builder, and where does lump labour come into the equation? It is important to know that, when both public money and someone who advises the Conservative Government about building is involved. The threats of violence should be investigated. The police should do something about it. Their feet would not touch the ground if they were striking miners or building workers on a picket line. Nor would Conservative Members defend those threats of violence. The trust should be investigated because it is not publicly accountable.

Mr. Gow

If the hon. Gentleman has genuine grounds for believing that criminal offences have been committed, will he tell the House on which date he gave notice to the police of his belief?

Mr. Roberts

I do not have to do that. The people involved notified the police and came to my advice bureau on Saturday, because they had had no response from the police. I assure the House that J. G. Mansfield has not yet been interviewed, although the police have been informed. That is why I am raising the matter in the House now.

I want to know why the trust and the building firm have the same accountant. I want the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister for Housing and Construction to inquire into the circumstances of the liquidation. Is it likely that that group of people will re-emerge as another building firm and be employed with public money elsewhere in Merseyside? The way things are developing that seems likely.

I should like assurances that the Department of Employment will not accept the validity of statements by the company's management about the work force and men who have been sacked or lost their jobs. The accusations are not made lightly. Stockbridge Village Trust receives large sums of public money, and the Government are the first to condemn and the police the first to act against violence on picket lines. I want the Government to condemn the intimidation of working people that brought them in large numbers to my advice bureau to complain.

Do Conservative Members think that it is appropriate for a building company such as Barratts, and a trust headed by Tom Baron to employ lump labour on a massive scale, and to fiddle the system? They are supposed to be in favour of law and order. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South is a perfect example. Yet she defends people trying to avoid paying national insurance contributions when they are supposed to be operating a reputable building concern.

Mrs. Currie

I am doing no such thing.

Mr. Roberts

If the Minister is really interested in joint venture schemes, he should see what is happening to the Edge lane estate in my constituency, where there are 374 difficult-to-let properties. A proposal by Cruden's to decapitate the maisonettes and sell them as houses and to build some new low-rise housing for rent cannot now go ahead, and the properties remain boarded up because decapitation is classed as an improvement and the imposition of VAT on improvements means that the dwellings could not be sold at a market price. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that aspect of the Government's policy of preventing joint venture schemes by reputable firms such as Cruden's through the imposition of VAT on major development work which the Government and the Inland Revenue laughingly class as improvements.

The Government's policy on joint ventures is being torpedoed by their own actions, their failure to control the building industry and to deal with lump labour and the imposition of VAT which will prevent further schemes from going ahead.

6.20 pm

Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on winning the ballot and on his choice of subject. Although we have had three debates about capital receipts, a subject central to housing policy, this is the first general debate on housing this Session.

I do not intend to comment on all the speeches in detail, but I am sure that the leader of Knowsley borough council, Councillor Jim Lloyd who serves on the Stockbridge Village Trust and on the management committee, will be most concerned to ensure that the allegations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) are fully investigated.

Mr. Allan Roberts

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Rooker

I was not discussing the allegations themselves. I was merely pointing out that Councillor Lloyd will no doubt be the first to insist that they be investigated.

With the exception of certain interventions, I have not disagreed with any of the speeches from either side. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) put forward positive proposals for improvement grant expenditure which are much to be welcomed and I look forward to debating legislation on building societies later in the year.

The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder) attacked the solicitors' monopoly and the Government's failure to keep their own promises.

I thought that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) was starting to tease me a little, but he made a valuable contribution about the massive scale of the housing crisis in Birmingham. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North also touched on that. As I must not deal with constituency matters from the Dispatch Box, I will merely point out that Birmingham has 25,000 unfit dwellings in the public sector and 35,000 in the private sector. Out of a housing stock of 380,000 there are 60,000 unfit dwellings—one dwelling in six, compared with the national average of one in 16. Birmingham and comparable cities clearly need special treatment. There is no blanket solution to the nation's housing crisis, because the situation varies throughout the country. In some areas there is a surplus of housing—it may be rotten housing, but it is in surplus — while in other areas there is a massive shortage of housing to buy or to rent, as the Minister knows from his own constituency.

The public pronouncements of the Building Employers Confederation in the past six or seven months have been vastly more pertinent than in the previous five or six years. A quotation from the confederation will set the background and tone for what I have to say. It has stated: We face a worsening housing crisis reflecting the fact that we are neither building sufficient new homes nor adequately maintaining existing housing. No hon. Member could disagree with that, but it remains to be seen whether anything will be done about it. By and large, the Government have no housing policy, just a few slogans. The Minister also has some quite funny speeches, but I hope that today he will respond seriously to the comments of Members on both sides about the breadth, depth and variety of the housing crisis throughout this country in the voluntary sector, the public sector and the private sector.

The Minister will no doubt bring out his home ownership slogan. As home ownership increased proportionately every year under the Labour Government, there is no argument between us on that. The Minister will no doubt go on to talk about the private sector, but the private sector has told him that, for a variety of reasons, it cannot meet the demand for housing in this country. He will no doubt also boast about the success of the Government's policy on improvement grants, but if it is so successful, why are they about to abandon it?

As this is a short debate, I can mention only a few of the Government's failures since 1979. First, they should be thoroughly ashamed of the fact that mortgage rates are on average 50 per cent. higher than they were under the Labour Government. No one expected that to happen under the Conservatives. A mortgage rate which is twice the rate of inflation imposes a crippling burden on millions of people.

Millions of viewers saw the stark effects of that in the "Panorama" programme on television a week ago. Why should families paying off long-term mortgages become the victims of short-term changes brought about by big-time money speculators? When the interest rate casino started up in the mid-1970s, the Labour Government set up a building societies mortgage interest stabilisation fund at no cost to public funds. That system worked quite satisfactorily, but the Conservatives have made no attempt at all to deal with the problem. Of course there is no magic formula but the Labour Government proved that some short-term assistance could be given.

The Government's failure with regard to land prices has already been mentioned. They have allowed the price of building land for housing to rise by 1,000 per cent. in seven years and by even more in some areas. Under the Conservatives we have had south American inflation rates in the price of building land, finishing off the building industry in many parts of the country, especially the home counties. The deliberate restrictions placed on building land for new homes in areas where people want or need to live has sent the price of building plots through the roof. How can the private sector fulfil the Government's policy to take over virtually all land for housing and build houses within the reach of first-time buyers when a plot of land costs between £20,000 and £30,000?

In many parts of the country, such as Berkshire, Hertfordshire, Suffolk and Warwickshire, cuts in building land of between 20 and 30 per cent. from structure plans are deliberately designed to force up the price of such land. Indeed, they are deliberately designed to prevent people from moving into such areas. They are designed deliberately to stop the building of houses—a subject on which many Conservative Members have campaigned in recent months. They do not want new housing in their constituencies. In fact, this cut amounts to a tax on housing.

The Minister only recently met the House-Builders Federation. Following that meeting, Mr. Humber said last week: We can only fill the gap if we have land at reasonable prices. The party of home ownership at Downing Street is not the party of home ownership when you go into the shire counties". What is the Government's response to a situation about which they alone can do something? The federation also said: in terms of delivering owner occupation to people who want it, at prices they can afford, and who expect this Government to help them, the Government's record—and that of its shire county supporters who are the real culprits—is appalling". The House-Builders Federation and, indeed, the Building Employers Confederation are not exactly known for stuffing the coffers of the Labour party at election time. Those gentlemen and their industries are the paymasters of the Tory party. They believe that under this Government it is their duty to carry out housing policy, but they cannot do so because of the other policies which the Government have imposed on the nation.

The third area of failure, in addition to the massive increase in mortgage rates and land prices, relates to the number of new dwellings. No one will argue that there is no longer a need to build new dwellings, even though we may argue about the part of the country in which they are built and the kind and size of dwellings to meet the mix in the population. By the year 2000, the population will increase by only 4 per cent. The Government recently told us that by the same date the number of households will have increased by 14 per cent. We therefore know that there will be a massive mismatch of population to households, even in the few short years to the end of the century.

Had the Government continued the average new home-build programme of the last Labour Government, there would today be more than 500,000 new homes than exist. The last Labour Government's average build programme was 285,000 dwellings a year for five years. The average new build programme under the Tory Government in their first five years was 180,000 dwellings a year—more than 100,000 fewer. Put another way, for every week that the Prime Minister has been in Downing street, 2,000 fewer new homes have been started than under the last Labour Government.

The Labour party has nothing whatever to apologise for, although we are the first to admit that we did not build enough homes. We have nothing to be defensive about. The 500,000 homes that have been lost represent 1.5 million taps. I bet that the tap manufacturers would have liked to see their factories churning out those taps. Those houses also represent at least 1 million front and back doors, which the woodworking factories would like to have made. They represent at least 10,000 million bricks, which could have been manufactured by British workers to be used in homes for British people. That has not been possible simply because of the cutback in the Government's building programme.

In its leader column a few weeks ago, when it referred to taking comfort from the Prime Minister's statements, the Building Trades Journal said: The next election would be upon us and who is to say which way the voting will go. Another dose of this type of Tory administration would be disastrous for the industry and the Government needs firmly discouraging now from keeping on its present course". That is the weekly vehicle of the builders and building material producers, who have suffered catastrophic business failures in the last five or six years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North referred to international comparisons. Why should we be different from France or Germany? Their populations are roughly the same, and the wealth of those nations is not that dissimilar from our own. Indeed, the economic capacity of the three countries is about the same. France and Germany are our economic competitors. Why do they invest three times as much of their gross national product in residential building as we do? What difference causes that to happen? Why do they think it worth while to invest in residential building, whereas the United Kingdom Government do not? I doubt whether those issues will be raised at the European summits, but perhaps the Minister can explain the reasons for this trend over the past few years.

The repairs crisis has been well documented by many of my hon. Friends, and reference has been made to the Government's forthcoming attempt to change the system of measuring unfit housing. Do the Government intend to change the fitness standards in the next house condition survey? We must be able to measure the fitness of housing in 1986 on the same basis as in 1981. Come the end of this month, when the inquiry into British housing—which to its credit has been sponsored by the National Federation of Housing Associations—reports, the Government will not be able to get out of the corner.

On the evidence available, it is possible for only one kind of report to be written, and the Minister knows it. He will not be able to flannel over dinner with members of the inquiry team on the day that the report is published. They and the country will want firm Government decisions on what has emerged in report after report from all sectors of society right across the political spectrum, because the housing crisis can no longer be ignored.

We now face problems arising from the junk housing forced on local authorities by Governments of both persuasions in the 1950s and 1960s—no one denies that —but we must show the British people that Parliament has learnt from its mistakes. We shall no longer be able, simply by fiddling the subsidy arrangements, to force local authorities to build junk jungles in which people will be forced to live, be they vast estates that are so anonymous as to be unbelievable or tower blocks in the sky. Both parties are to blame, but this Government have not yet had the courage to say, "Yes, we made a mistake. We admit it. We shall learn from it and do something about it." We will not allow the Biiminghams of this world to pay out of their own resources, because the 429 tower blocks in Birmingham have been surveyed and all have been found to be in serious need of repair. We will not allow the Manchesters of this world to cope on their own, because they are saddled with vast numbers of deck access housing. We will not allow them to count as housing investment the dismantling of the Bison deck access fiats to see whether they were put together properly.

The Minister still refuses to give Newham council financial approval to dismantle Ronan Point, winch I visited a few days ago to see how that tower block was put together. Why should Newham council have to pay housing investment money to dismantle Ronan Point? Surely the Government cart make a special dispensation for that tower block, whose name will haunt housing policy, architects and planners for years to come.

Local authorities alone cannot cope with these problems. Given their inadequate resources, they are not able to help the thousands of people who are trapped in junk high-rise housing in which they are forced to live. Local authorities are unable to get people out of unfit owner-occupied housing, simply because the Government refuse to accept their responsibility.

It is no good the Minister saying, "You own your own house. We have created a policy which forces you to do this because we have cut back on the building of houses for rent." The Minister knows full well that there is a massive need for houses to rent. His own local council told him so in its housing investment statement last year.

There is a massive need for housing both for those who want to buy and for those who want to rent, at a price which they can afford. There can be no freedom of choice between tenures if there is a deliberate Government policy to deny people the opportunity to have one sort of tenure of housing, and so force them into the other. That leads to the examples that we saw on "Panorama" last week. Real choice of freedom means what it says—a genuine choice of available housing. The Government's dogmatic approach of virtually refusing to countenance any building for rent must change.

We want building for sale to continue. We want housebuilders to improve their record levels of building for sale, but we also want people to have a choice to rent if they wish. That should be their decision. It should not be a decision of the Government or of the local authority. However, the decision whether people have the choice is the Government's. They should make resources available to the voluntary sector and to local authorities, and should change the rules and regulations for land planning, so that housebuilders can go back into the market to build for first-time buyers. Nobody will convince me or the housebuilders that the Government's policies are designed to allow them to build for first-time buyers. The Government know that that is not the case, so a change in Government policy is called for.

Often in the past the Opposition have been accused of being irresponsible because, it was said, we made demands which were based on a bottomless pit and the money was not available. This is one of the wealthiest countries in the world—let no one deny that—but we misuse our wealth. The Audit Commission was set up by the Government, but only a few days ago it said that to tackle seriously the scope and size of our housing crisis no less than £50,000 million was required. That makes the Building Employers Confederation demand for £30,000 million to tackle the housing crisis look extremely modest. I ask the Minister to split the difference and get on with the job.

6.42 pm

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow)

The debate was diminished by the contribution made by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). I do not think that he will be anxious to repeat outside some of the things that he said within the privilege of the House. I completely reject any criticism that he has made of Mr. Tom Baron, who has made a remarkable contribution to the success of the Stockbridge Village Trust, a success that is greatly appreciated by those who really matter—those who have lived and will live at Stockbridge. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do the decent thing and withdraw any allegation against Mr. Baron.

Mr. Allan Roberts

In the light of that, will the Minister ask Mr. Tom Baron to have an inquiry into the employment of lump labour at the Stockbridge village site?

Mr. Gow

I shall study carefully, when I receive the Official Report tomorrow, the allegations that the hon. Gentleman has made. It goes without saying that if there is anything in his speech that, upon examination, requires investigation, most emphatically that inquiry will be carried out.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) made a characteristically thoughtful speech. In our new Green Paper, our proposals on improvement grant eligibility are out for consultation. No decision has yet been made about who will be eligible for grants under the new scheme. On page 7, we said: The overriding aim will be to ensure that as far as possible the system includes those who are unable to afford the necessary improvement and repair work unaided, and excludes those who do not need help. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Brown) referred properly to the problems of the city that he has represented in the House for so long. He knows that I have visited Newcastle to see some of the problems there for myself.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder) made an interesting speech about my profession of the law. I shall draw his speech to the attention of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) knows that I have visited his constituency to see the Smith houses there. He referred to possible new evidence that might assist in reaching the decision, so far denied, to include Smith houses under the category of houses designated under the Housing Defects Act 1984. If he has any further fresh evidence that I have not yet considered, although I believe that I have considered it all, I undertake to look at it. My hon. Friend also referred to the possibility of a transferable voucher system. He will know that he has been anticipated already by the Government, in that there is a transferable discount scheme in operation for tenants of charitable housing associations who were denied the right to buy under the Housing and Building Control Act 1984.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), as did the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), on having won first place in the ballot and chosen the subject of housing. Housing as a subject should be debated more often in the House, and I hope that it will be. However, my congratulations stop there. The hon. Gentleman made a characteristically intemperate speech matched by an equally characteristic modesty, which he showed when drafting his general election address, of which, for the sake of accuracy, I have a copy. He drafted his eulogy with loving care. He said that he was One of the most hard-working and dedicated of MPs,". That is "Winnick on Winnick", but it is not much of a tribute to his parliamentary colleagues.

I note, in passing, that the then candidate for Walsall, North offered a typical bribe to the electors. While the then Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), said in his election address that the Labour party would freeze council house rents for one year, there was no similar time limit given by the chairman of the Tribune group in his election address. He simply promised to freeze council house rents". The hon. Gentleman's election address was calculated to mislead, and so is his motion today. An honest motion on housing would have been in the following terms: That this House notes that local authority capital expenditure on housing was cut by 50 per cent. in real terms between 1974–75 and 1978–79"— [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Yes, that would have been the truthful motion. Such a motion would have continued: congratulates the Government on the success of its housing policies since May 1979 in providing the great majority of the British people with better housing than at any time in our history; on giving to most public sector tenants the right to buy their home and introducing the tenants charter; on the provision of 1¼ million new houses and flats; on increasing the number of home owners by nearly 2 million; on substantially higher public expenditure on improvements and repairs and welcomes further initiatives"— which I hope, if I get to the end of my speech, I shall be able to announce— to combat homelessness. Since May 1979, 1.25 million new homes have been built in Britain. Since May 1979, more than 850,000 houses and flats have been sold by local authorities, new towns and housing associations. More than 775,000 of those sales were to sitting tenants. Sales are still running at well over 100,000 a year. Since May 1979, the number of owner-occupiers has increased by nearly 2 million. In England, 63 per cent. of our housing is now owner-occupied. Over these past six years, we have seen the most rapid increase in home ownership in any period of our history, and the extension of home ownership reflects the preferred choice of the overwhelming majority of the British people.

The increase in home ownership has not happened by accident. It has come about as the direct result of the policies of Her Majesty's Government. There is no need to remind you, Mr. Speaker, but I shall go on reminding the Opposition that they opposed with such vigour as they could muster the right to buy when introduced originally in the Housing Act 1980 and when extended in the Housing and Building Control Act 1984. You will remember, too, Mr. Speaker, that the Labour party fought and lost the last election on the policy of repealing the right to buy.

Those Opposition Members who sit below the Gangway, and many of those who sit above it, will never understand that home ownership is a legitimate aspiration for those who live on council estates. The improbable figure of the hon. Member for Perry Barr, motivated as much by electoral expediency as by principle, trying to rid the Labour party of the electoral albatross which it hung round its own neck last time is not edifying.

Mr. Winnick

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gow

No. Only a short time remains before the end of the debate.

Just as the hon. Member for Perry Barr was beginning to congratulate himself on the faltering progress that he was making, along came the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), without even a whisper in his hon. Friend's ear, and said that if ever his party sat on the Treasury Bench, mortgage tax relief would be knocked on the head.

Mr. Meacher

That is not true.

Mr. Gow

"Knocked on the head" is my paraphrase of what was said in the document—[Interruption.] No, the hon. Gentleman did not use the phrase. That is my paraphrase of what the hon. Member for Oldham, West said.

Meanwhile, the House and the 4.5 million-plus local authority tenants who have not yet bought their homes await with mounting impatience to see what housing policy will emerge.

Mr. Winnick

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gow

No. I have already told the hon. Gentleman that I have only a short time in which to complete my speech, and it will take some time to extol the virtues of this Government's housing policy.

Meanwhile those who have not yet bought their homes —the 4.5 million still living in council accommodation —wait with mounting impatience to see what housing policy will emerge as the struggle between the chairman of the Tribune group, the hon. Member for Perry Bar, and the hon. Member for Oldham, West proceeds.

The hon. Member for Walsall, North referred to the 1981 English house condition survey. That showed that in the preceding decade the number of houses without an inside loo had fallen from one in eight to one in 33 and that the number of houses without a bath had fallen from one in 10 to one in 40.

In the four years since the 1981 survey, 647,000 improvement and repair grants have been given, totalling more than £2.25 billion. In the last four years of the Labour Government, when the condition of our housing stock was worse, the total number of grants was only 261,000, amounting to £290 million. Last year, 229,000 improvement and repair grants were made, the highest number ever given and 300 per cent. more than during the last full year that the Labour party was in power. For the financial year 1984–85, £725 million was spent on grants compared with £90 million in the last year of the Labour Government.

In the last five years of Tory Government, more than 280,000 repair grants have been paid. In the last five years of the Labour Government, 838 grants were paid. For every grant paid under compassionate Labour, 334 have been paid under the flint-faced Tories. Those hon. Members who have spoken from the Opposition Benches would have been more honest with the House if they had acknowledged those truths.

We have not had a contribution from any hon. Member representing a Welsh constituency, but I give some figures about Wales. Between 1975 and 1979, only 500 repair grants were given throughout the Principality. Between 1981 and 1984, while my right hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) has been Secretary of State, 43,000 grants have been paid. For every grant given by the compassionate Labour party, 86 have been given by the flint-faced Tories.

The same general pattern appears if one takes a specific example. I have selected at random the Brecon and Radnor district councils. In the five years between 1975 and 1979, when for some of the time the highly principled members of the parliamentary Liberal party were sustaining in office the most illiberal Government of modern times, not a single repair grant was given in Brecon or Radnor.

Mr. Simon Hughes

rose—

Mr. Gow

I shall give way to the official spokesman for the Liberal party so that he can say what representations for grants were made under the terms of that squalid arrangement, the Lib-Lab pact, which, to be fair to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), was made before he arrived in the House.

Mr. Hughes

Perhaps the. Minister will give the House one other fact— [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall answer his question in a moment. I always answer questions.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle)

The alliance is running third in Brecon and Radnor now.

Mr. Hughes

No. We are second. Will the Minister say who was in charge of the local authorities in Brecon and Radnor during the period in question? We ought to be told that.

The answer to the Minister's question is that the Labour Government, with Liberal support, did more for small firms, including the appointment of a Minister. Among those to benefit was the building industry, and that produced—

Mr. Speaker

Order. This debate is about housing.

Mr. Gow

I was wrong to give way to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey.

Since 1979, despite assertions to the contrary, local authority capital expenditure on public sector repair and renovation has increased substantially and is now running at more than £1 billion a year. In addition, local authorities are spending another £1 billion a year out of revenue on repairs and maintenance. In 1984, 87,000 local authority and new town dwellings were renovated — a higher figure than in any year since 1973 when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) was Secretary of State. That trend is continuing. In the first quarter of 1985, there were 32,000 renovations, compared with 21,700 in the same quarter of 1984. Since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister arrived in Downing street, 450,000 local authority-owned dwellings have been renovated.

Of course, I share the concern expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the condition of our PRC houses and some of the large panel blocks. In April this year, I asked all housing authorities to provide details of the condition of the houses and flats which they owned. I have now received replies from more than 90 per cent. of the authorities, and those replies are being analysed. The conclusions from those studies will be available before we take our decisions about local authorities' housing investment programme allocations for next year.

I have visited public sector housing, as it is my duty to do, in every part of England. I have seen how great is the contrast between the best and the worst managed housing estates. Insensitive, unimaginative and bureaucratic management, when replaced by that which is sensitive, imaginative and efficient, can literally transform the lives of tenants.

Our priority estates programme which we set up with local authorities five years ago has shown what can be achieved. Locally based management, proper consultations with tenants, improvements in security and dealing with the backlog of repairs are the essential ingredients. Many authorities now have PEP schemes. I hope that others with problem estates will join them.

Of course, the House ought to be, and is, concerned with those who today live in unsatisfactory housing conditions, but the truth remains—and in this truth we are entitled to take some pride—that the great majority of the British people are better housed today than ever before. The Government are determined that that progress shall continue.

It being Seven o'clock, proceedings thereon lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 6 (Arrangement of public business).