Housing Condition Survey (Scotland) (Hansard, 15 July 1986)

§ Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to impose a duty on the Secretary of State for Scotland to undertake a survey of the conditions of the public and private sector housing stock in Scotland every five years; to provide for the publication of the survey; and for connected purposes. The first house condition survey took place exclusively in England in 1967. There had been increasing disquiet about the rate of slum clearance in the early 1960s, and in 1964 the Government required local authorities to submit returns of all their remaining unlit houses. A subcommittee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee was set up to deal with the difficulties of obtaining better data on the standards of unfitness. It became known as the Denington committee. It took an active interest in the need to collect accurate information on the condition of the older housing stock and specifically recommended a national house condition survey.

Since then, England and Wales have had the benefit of surveys carried out on a national basis at five-yearly intervals. The first house condition survey played a large part in the switch from demoliton to rehabilitation in housing policy in the late 1960s. In Northern Ireland, house condition surveys began in 1974 and have been maintained on a five-yearly cycle, in 1979 and in 1984.

The English survey is paid for out of the housing research budget. The total annual budget for the 1986 survey is estimated to be about £1.4 million. The cost of the Welsh survey, which, too, is financed from a specific research account, is likely to be £1.5 million. The Northern Ireland budget is included in the block allocation for supervision and management and therefore is not available to be identified as a separate cost.

Of course, it can be argued that, if the research budget is expanded to meet the cost of a survey, less money is available for capital expenditure. I submit that, measured against the estimated cost of the perceived investment need, which the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities estimates to be about £819 million, the £1 million a year, or sums of that order, which would be required to finance such a survey are well worth paying in terms of the benefits that would directly accrue on a continuing basis for all such surveys.

Recent developments have further reinforced the case for house condition surveys to be extended to cover and embrace Scotland. They include the Duke of Edinburgh's recent inquiry into the state of British housing, which was published in July 1985, and the inquiry by the Department of the Environment into the condition of local authority housing stock in England, which was published in November 1985. The latter revealed that the condition of housing stock was much worse than had originally been suspected.

During the passage of the current Housing (Scotland) Bill, the Government were repeatedly pressed — I give credit to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who was in the van of that movement—to make a commitment to set up a nationally based survey. In addition, the third report of the Select Committee on the Environment made specific reference in paragraph 22 871 to the importance of the English house condition survey and went as far as to say that the next survey should be brought forward.

The Government's response to all this has been, to put it mildly, minimal. Last week, in the housing debate on Estimates day in the Scottish Grand Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland — the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram)—said that he was keen to set up a project to make technical advice available to local authorities which could then undertake local surveys. Such proposals do not even begin to measure up to the need in Scotland to assess the extent of the investment required and to bring public and private housing stock to tolerable standards. I suspect that the extent of the need is as suggested by COSLA. It will he impossible to finalise arguments on that score until we undertake an objective survey. Until that is done, there will always be room for continuing political argument.

I fully accept that it would be impossible for any Government to respond immediately in meeting the total bill. It would be unrealistic to expect that to happen. However, it is evident to everyone in Scotland, except the Government, that existing sources of information on house conditions are inadequate. At present, there is no basis for knowing whether house conditions in Scotland are worse or better than in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is not known whether Scotland is receiving an appropriate share of national resources. A regular house condition survey would make it possible to review the success of legislation, expenditure, priorities and programmes and would identify problems and new policy directions.

Postponed maintenance is inevitably more costly than maintenance, if not eventual enforced demolition and rebuild. A survey's objectives would include the ability to identify and cost the need for improvement and repair. A survey could make comparisons between tenures and districts, help determine local priorities and provide guidance for legislation. It could embrace also a social survey of family groups and types. A sample of 56,000 houses, which is the suggested number, could be covered over a five-year period at an annual cost of £1 million, which represents only 0–22 per cent. of the 1986 capital allocation. A house condition survey in Scotland is therefore a stitch in time that would save nine. It is urgently required. It should be funded and organised by central Government, and the Bill sets out to achieve just that.

§ Mr. Walker

Yes, Sir; I oppose the Bill. The issues that it raises have been discussed at great length in Committee, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is aware. Indeed, we have discussed the issues more than once in Committee. We are in a period of scarce resources and cash is required for the improvement of houses rather than for surveys to tell us what we already know is wrong. Local authorities know exactly what they are required to do with their houses. What is required is the necessary resources to put right the wrongs.

The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has prepared a report, having considered the problems of condensation and dampness. Information was made available and it was clear that local authorities were not too happy that we had discovered that some of them were falling down on their job. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire suggests that we should spend £5 million over five years on a survey, but that £5 million could be spent on putting wrongs right. He has suggested a complete misuse of scarce resources.

The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire will be aware that the English survey, which he talked about and complimented, is nothing like what he was advising would be included in the proposed survey for Scotland. If he reads carefully the report of his speech, he will realise that he was proposing something different from the sample which was taken in England. He knows that it was based on a sample because that was made clear in Committee.

The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire is indulging in a Liberal party gimmick that is designed to get publicity for something that it wants when the real answer is to deal with the problem directly and solve it. That is why I oppose the Bill.