HC Deb 04 March 1987 vol 111 cc1003-10

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

12.2 am

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)

Tonight in Bradford, families have gone to bed in 32,000 homes that are in need of major renovation. There are about 8,000 men, women and children on the council's waiting list. In 5,000 so-called homes without running water, an inside toilet or a bathroom, people wonder how much longer they will have to endure such conditions. Hundreds of tenants with children have been rehoused after being moved from homes that were structurally defective.

There are thousands of council tenants whose homes are in urgent need of modernisation and repair, and there are tenants anxiously awaiting a transfer. The homeless are being shunted around poor bed and breakfast hotels, hostels and other poor accommodation. Thousands of low-income owner occupiers desperately want improvement grants to provide their homes with basic amenities. Elderly people, single people and families and private tenants in multi-occupation accommodation are living in conditions which are often dangerous, and those people often face harassment and extremely poor living conditions.

These stark and simple facts spell out the gravity of Bradford's housing crisis. About 7,000 council homes in Bradford have been sold, and building programmes come nowhere near replacing the homes that have been sold. The local newspaper, the Telegraph and Argus, in a dramatic series of articles last December, printed the figures for new house starts and completions in Bradford, and they clearly show the decline in building in the city.

In 1977–78 there were 975 starts in local authority building, and in each year since then the number has fallen. The figures are: 998, 297, 290 and in 1981–82 there were no starts whatever. In 1982–83 there were 42, in 1983–84 there were 59, in 1984–85 there were 45 and in 1985–86 there were just 50. For most of that period, certainly since the beginning of this decade, the local authority was under the control of a Conservative, SDP-Liberal alliance. The city's population is increasing dramatically and authoritative forecasts say that by 1996 we shall need to provide homes for an extra 11,000 people.

The latest estimates are that we need to build 1,400 houses a year in addition to the normal building level.

Bradford needs more money from the Government to build more new homes and to make more improvement grants available to improve and renovate older homes. We need agreement from the Government to spend more of the money received from the sale of council homes and land so that Bradford can spend more of its money on better housing provision in the city. Bradford needs permission to use private finance, for example from building societies, to finance the building of new homes and the renovation of older homes, many of which are well-built and large. They represent desirable accommodation for larger families and could help to regeneate the inner city and persuade more people to stay in the city.

I much regret that the Prime Minister recently refused my request to meet a broadly based deputation, which consisted of the city council, the chamber of commerce, the trades council, the university and the ethnic minority organisations, to discuss the full range of the city's problems, including our housing crisis. Had the Prime Minister agreed to the meeting, she would have heard that, in parts of Bradford, it now costs more to build a new home than the price at which that new property may be sold. A three-bedroomed semi-detached house in Manningham would now cost at least £10,000 more to build than the price at which it could be sold. That is the major deterrent to any developer—public or private—building new homes in inner-city Bradford.

When I wrote to the Prime Minister to request the meeting I explained the difficulties that Bradford faced in providing homes for its people. On 23 February the Prime Minister replied: As in 1986/87, Bradford's initial HIP allocation may be supplemented by additional allocations for schemes on rundown council estates drawn up in conjunction with the Department of the Environment's Estate Action team. In 1986/87 Bradford has received additional approvals for Estate Act schemes amounting to £2.4 million and I would expect the Council to look to this opportunity to supplement is housing allocation again in 1987/88. That is welcome, but it is wholly insufficient to meet the problems that we face.

The total dependence in Bradford on free market forces creates monstrous obstacles to our people's ability to live in the inner cities in either council or private homes that they can afford to rent or in homes that they can afford to buy.

The verdict of the market place on property values reflects many factors—levels of employment, levels of economic activity and levels of economic prosperity. Bradford and many of its people are extremely poor. One in five of my constituents are unemployed, and in parts of the district unemployment soars to 50 or 60 per cent. A third of the population are in receipt of benefit. Workers in west Yorkshire receive the lowest pay of any region in the United Kingdom.

Hence, on a day when we hear that property prices have increased by record amounts in London and the south-east, and Conservative Members in the south are protesting about property development in their plush and prosperous areas, I must come to the House to tell the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction that in inner-city Bradford houses now cost more to build than the price at which they can be sold. So much for the north-south divide. It is in housing that that divide is most grotesque.

A sensible, caring, compassionate Government with genuine concern about our people's quality of life would recognise that they must intervene in the market if families in Bradford will be able to live and hopefully work in the inner city. If all our people are to be properly housed, the Government must be forced out of their uncaring complacency.

At Question Time today a visitor from Mars, having listened to Ministers, might be forgiven for thinking that our housing crisis could be solved if only councils let every empty house, rent controls were swept away and hundreds of hostels were provided for the homeless. We desperately need new thinking, new ideas and new approaches. Above all, we need homes for the homeless and good homes for all those living in desperate housing need. We must urgently devise new ways of funding inner-city housing. Local councils should no longer be in the straitjacket of annual housing programmes with the 60-year loans and conventional interest rates.

Why cannot there be some new machinery such as a revamped Public Works Loan Board, offering finance at preferential interest rates for new building and renovation? It would require a dynamic and flexible approach, working in full partnership and co-operation with local councils. A decent home, at a rent or price that can be afforded, is surely a modern right, as central to any civilised society as the right to work, to food and warmth, to free health and to universal education. Far too many of my constituents and other citizens of Bradford are living in rotten housing conditions and have no work. Because they are forced to stay in a lot, their electricity and gas bills are extremely high. Many have their fuel supplies disconnected because of arrears that they are unable to pay. Their children go to schools that are crumbling and in some cases literally falling down. Illness, nervous stress and marriage break-ups are becoming of increasing concern.

Many of these people hear the chairman of the Conservative party tell them to get on their bikes and go to where the work is. Those who do find work away usually cannot find anywhere in which they can afford to live. Today, the Secretary of State for the Environment, in his laid-back way, advised the homeless in London to move north, to where there are plenty of empty homes available. My constituents want to live and work in Bradford. They want a decent home and a decent pay packet. Far too many of them, alas, now have neither.

Everybody but the Government sees that spending much more on investing in building new homes and improving older homes makes good sense. It gives people better homes and it provides work directly for builders, plumbers and electricians, and for others indirectly—for example, all those who work in providing building supplies and materials. Already, in Bradford there is concern that when the building programme starts, there will be serious skill shortages, which will hold back progress.

Tonight, as thousands of my constituents spend another night in overcrowded, cold, damp and dingy homes, I hope that the Minister will give those people some hope. I hope that he will engage in a genuine debate and seriously address the issues that I have raised regarding the housing crisis now gripping Bradford.

I began by referring to an excellent series of articles in the Telegraph and Argus. The editorial coming at the end of that series said : If Bradford makes about £8 million in a year by selling council houses, land and other assets, it should be allowed to spend the lot building new houses—not restricted to just 20 per cent. of it per year. Surely this would be one way of injecting the local economy with funds, creating much-needed work for the construction industry. Bradford urgently requires new houses, and the updating of several thousand pre-1919 properties. Lastly, thousands of houses in the private sector need to be improved and modernised. Unless they are, they will quickly be degenerating into slums. If that happens Bradford's crisis will be even worse, requiring vastly much more money than is the case at present. Surely, cutting improvement grants back to the bone is false economy: whatever short-term savings on the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement are made now will only cause much greater long-term expense in the future. That is the authentic voice of concern about the housing crisis in Bradford.

I ask the Minister, rather than giving a litany of the shortcomings of the last Labour Government, which is the predeliction of so many Conservative Ministers when replying to debates such as this, to address himself to the problems of the past and the challenge of the future. I hope that he will have something positive to say, and will be able to give my constituents and the other citizens of Bradford who are now worried and desperately anxious about their housing conditions, some hope of better things to come.

12.14 am
The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction (Mr. John Patten)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) for initiating the debate on housing in Bradford as it provides me with an opportunity to outline the housing policy of the Government as it applies in an inner-city authority such as Bradford. I am glad to have listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech; I am equally glad to see my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler) and for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who are showing their characteristic interest in housing matters in the area.

We are well aware of the housing problems in Bradford; they have not sprung up overnight; neither have they sprung up since 1979. We have annual housing investment programme meetings between our Yorkshire and Humberside regional office and the city council. My Department's Estate Action team has visited Bradford no fewer than six times in the last 18 months. I went to Bradford in March 1986. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), visited the city on 12 November and 14 December 1986. Alas, only ill-health has prevented him from being here tonight to answer the debate. I wish my hon. Friend a speedy recovery so that he can take his accustomed place at the Dispatch Box answering Adjournment debates such as this. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also recently visited Bradford.

The hon. Gentleman made one very interesting suggestion that we should look, root and branch, at the way in which we fund housing in the public sector. That is a massive topic and is not suitable, in any great detail, for discussion in an Adjournment debate, but the hon Gentleman has made some interesting points. The way that we respond depends on our view of the future role of councils in the provision of housing.

That having been said, in the short term I do not think that there will be much change in the next few years. I do not think that we could reform the way in which local authority housing is funded so that, instead of being limited, for example, in the amount that they can spend each year they would be able to plan programmes over a period of years. We recognise how important it is that local authorities should run their capital programmes efficiently and cost-effectively, but nonetheless the management of the economy and the control of public expenditure—something that we hear a lot about from the Opposition Front Bench—depend on the Government being able to review the position and take the most appropriate action on capital expenditure, on matters such as housing, on a year-to-year basis.

Capital expenditure on housing is a large part of the total capital expenditure of local authorities and a significant proportion of total public expenditure. It would be difficult, under the present system, to commit the Government, more than about a year in advance, to a view about how much can be spent on housing in a given year at any one time. That is a superficial glance at the interesting topic that the hon. Gentleman has raised, which is of general interest.

I shall turn now to the funding of housing and housing development in the country and in Bradford. Nationally, we have increased — despite the impression that Opposition Members would give us — the gross provision for local authority housing capital expenditure by £200 million in the current year to £2,532 million—an increase of 9 per cent.

On 7 November 1986 I announced a further increase in the provision of £390 million up to a total of £2,922 million for 1987–88—an increase of 15 per cent. in provision for housing. I also announced that allocations through Estate Action—what used to be known as the urban housing renewal unit—would be increased from £50 million in the current year to £75 million next year. Some significant investment through Estate Action has and will be flowing into Bradford, thanks to the Government's action. There will be a reserve allocation of some £14 million for authorities with special difficulties implementing housing defects legislation — a matter which has not been the subject of much discussion today.

Bradford has done relatively well out of the housing investment programme allocation recently. For 1987–88, its HIP allocation is £12.903 million of the initial resources available for allocation in Yorkshire and Humberside. That is 11.6 per cent. of the region's allocation, which is an increase on its share this year. That is some recognition of its problems.

Bradford also has its share of capital receipts. I estimate that about £5 million should be available. Bradford could therefore have a programme of £18 million or a little more in the coming year.

Bradford's share of the region's allocation has been well in excess of that indicated by the generalised needs index, on which many of our calculations are based. It could, however, show more interest in applications for urban development grant, which can be used for housing. I do not think that Bradford has been as forthcoming as other northern Labour-controlled authorities which have been keen on urban development grant, sometimes to solve certain housing needs.

The hon. Gentleman's constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North have many minority communities with larger than average families. In ideal circumstances, they would have a four or five bedroom house. Other Labour-controlled authorities in the north have encouraged development with private developers using urban development grant to provide housing for such people. That is an important trend.

Mr. Geoff Lawler (Bradford, North)

The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) talked of low house values in Bradford, which are a problem. Urban development grant can be used to make it worth while for private developers to develop. Bradford's Labour-controlled council has occasionally not been very enthusiastic about that, but Sloane square in the hon. Gentleman's constituency shows the go-ahead nature of the scheme and the Government's determination to do something about inner-city housing.

Mr. Patten

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When used well, urban development grant can bridge the gap between profitability and impracticability.

The visits by Estate Action have produced substantial benefits for Bradford. The Department's priority estate project consultants are working closely with Bradford and establishing how they can help with housing management.

The picture is not as bleak as the hon. Member for Bradford, West implied. When I was in Bradford last March, I announced approval of a package of measures at the Holmewood B estate involving the establishment of a local estate office and an additional HIP allocation of £1.2 million in this year alone for new doors, windows, heating systems and an external insulation system for the walk-up blocks of flats. We also approved a community refurbishment scheme to improve the environment of the estate, involving the expenditure of about £685,000 from the urban programme and £855,000 from the Manpower Services Commission's community programme. We are employing estate-based persons to do up the estates in which they live, a concept that I think we would all consider to be thoroughly agreeable. A high proportion of those working at the Holmewood estate have been recruited from it. That shows how we can begin to target resources on problem areas and improve the employment picture in the area as well. The Government are determined to try to continue implementing that approach, the fruits of which can be seen already. We have tried to create job opportunities through the community refurbishment scheme and there has been a noticeable decrease already in the number of tenants who wish to transfer away from the estate. This form of intensive management is the way in which to turn estates around.

In December, I approved two further schemes at the Hutson street estate and the Woodhouse estate in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley. These schemes involve an additional HIP allocation amounting to £1.2 million in the current year for environmental and security works and new windows. Of the £50 million of expenditure through estate action nationally in 1986–87, no less than 30 per cent. has been directed to the improvement of security for those living in large estates of the sort to which I have referred.

The Woodhouse scheme involves the opening of a local housing management office on the estate, which is something that should be welcomed widely.

Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley)

In the past, areas such as Bradford and Keighley have not been well served by the building of massive impersonal estates. With the assistance of the sort of money that is flowing for the Woodhouse estate, and through co-operation between the local authority, the police and the tenants, who have formed their own groups, there is a feeling among the tenants that they have a stake in the community and that co-operation bodes well for the future.

Mr. Patten

My hon. Friend is right. I think that there is all-party agreement that none of us wants to see any more of these large estates built again. That makes me so chary of suggestions and requests for large sums to be expended to solve overnight, as it were, the problems of a particular city. That approach is mistaken. The approach that we wish to take through estate action is the best one. I say that because it is based on the community, related to the community and involves the community, and that is critical.

Mr. Madden

It is right that none of us wants to see a return to the system building of the 1960s and 1970s. Does the Minister accept, however, the population projections which I gave in my opening remarks? If he does, how are we to provide decent homes for the many who will be seeking them in future? We must take into account also the many thousands who are now living in urgent housing need. There are demands for enormous sums to be expended, but that does not mean necessarily a return to system building. It means instead a major programme of housebuilding and home improvement.

Mr. Patten

We recognise the need to help Bradford city, and I have referred to the dilapidated and rundown estates that went wrong. It would be wrong for me to attribute blame to any one political party. Governments and councils of all political parties must share the blame.

I have the great disadvantage of knowing a little about population projections. I am bound to say that I used to give rather good lectures on the subject at the university of Oxford. Few of the projections of population increases or decreases of even 10 or 15 years have been correct because of the mobility of the society in which we live. I do not believe that we can have firmly based projections of the population of Bradford or anywhere else in the year 2000. At the same time, I recognise that Bradford's population is increasing.

This has been a rather lively debate by normal Adjournment standards and I must tell my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to get well soon and return to enjoy debates of this sort on the Adjournment. We have had a useful discussion, but it is unfortunate that I have not had the chance to list the many schemes that we have funded, or will fund, in our attempts constructively to help Bradford with the housing problems that it faces.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Twelve o'clock.