PART VIII OF HOUSING ACT 1985 (Hansard, 14 June 1989)

§ Mr. Rooker

I want to make a few points about the amendments as they affect clause 89. My only case for raising this is the inter-reaction between the winding-up of housing action areas and the beginning of the housing renewal areas as outlined in clause 89. I want to make a plea about central Handsworth in my constituency. In central Handsworth, in Charles and Turville housing action areas, hundreds of homes remain untouched to this day. They are oases of disrepair and dilapidation surrounded by a sea of improved housing. They have always been left to the end of all the other improvement schemes, because they are the most difficult to improve due to the design and tenure mix. Just as Birmingham city council, through the urban renewal department and with Department of Environment approval, got going on improvements, along came clause 89.

8.45 pm

I am aware that zone 1 of the Charles housing action area will start in a few weeks—or I hope it will. I am told by officials in Birmingham that it is possible to rejig the housing action area into a housing renewal area for central Handsworth. Obviously, it would be done after today's date, as outlined in Government amendment No. 163. I hope that the Minister will answer the key question: if 985 Birmingham local authority puts in a plan for central Handsworth by 1 April, will the Department of the Environment agree it and fund it?

I want to describe a little of the background to the Minister because it is crucial. I must point out that few Conservative Members of Parliament represent inner cities. They sometimes talk from briefings about the inner cities as though every inner city consisted of council housing and tower blocks. It is not like that, as people discovered four years ago when we had the disturbances in part of central Handsworth. I politely took the Home Secretary and others on one side, and the press less politely, and pointed out that the vast majority of homes in the area were owner-occupied and that the others were owned by bodies other than the local authority.

In Charles action area, owner-occupancy is 47 per cent., housing associations account for 39 per cent., the local authority for less than 5 per cent. and private landlords for 9.5 per cent. In Turville, 48 per cent. of homes are housing association properties. They are almost housing association estates—not the same housing association, because there are two large associations and four or five smaller ones. Some would claim that they are sink estates, such is the extent of the dilapidation. I know that money has been put in, but the properties are not good.

Worse still, one or more housing associations—and I will not give names because I have the information second-hand from the local authority—in inner Birmingham are about to pull out of rehabilitation work, which goes against the grain of the purpose for which the associations were set up, mainly as a result of the new financial regime.

The council could be putting together an alternative to what is presently proposed for central Handsworth but it could not go ahead because of clause 89. There are about 880 homes there. Of those, 43 per cent. are owner-occupied, 42 per cent. are owned by housing associations, 5.3 per cent. by local authorities, only 6 per cent. by private landlords and an odd 3 per cent. floating around which is "others or commercial". Of the homes, 80 per cent. were built before 1919. One of the reasons why the area is always left to the end is not only because the tenure and design mix is all over the place, but because 13.5 per cent. of the properties have rateable value above £225. Many years before I was born, the houses in that part of the city had quarters for servants. Judges used to live there and carriages used to arrive there. The rateable values there are high, compared with the generality. When housing improvement schemes of such a size come up against such rateable value limits, that presents difficulties.

Unemployment in that area is running at 45 per cent. Furthermore, the Minister and I are in the ethnic minority, which comprises 32 per cent. of the population. Pensioner owner-occupiers comprise 18 per cent. of the population of the area.

My constituents in that part of central Handsworth need a copper-bottomed guarantee that their treatment up to now as third-class citizens in relation to housing improvements will cease. When the consequences of the Bill became apparent to them earlier in the year there was much anger in the area. There are unscrupulous people in places such as central Handsworth who seek to exploit for other reasons the fear and the anger of the people that they would not have their houses improved. By and large, I use every opportunity to ensure that my constituents know that their cases can be raised legally and peacefully here in 986 the House of Commons and in the Birmingham city council house and that there is no reason for taking any other action that other people might propose. I promised hundreds of angry constituents that one way or another I would raise their concerns about the Bill and try to put across their case for the equal treatment that is their right. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give me the assurances that I am seeking.

When, in an Adjournment debate on 14 July 1987—just after the general election—I raised the specific issue of the Charles and Turville housing action areas, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), gave a fairly helpful reply and subsequently agreed to visit the area. However, in the event, the declaration of the Charles housing action area was made and the Minister then saw no useful purpose in the visit.

It is quite clear—this has been notified officially—that because of the provisions of the Bill, the declaration of the Turville housing action area and of the Willmore, Wellington and Wellhead housing action areas which are close by will not be made. Therefore, some time between now and, say, the end of the long recess, I am asking the Minister to pay a short visit to the area to see it for himself. His regional office knows that is a difficult area because of some of the factors that I have explained. It would be useful if the Minister could see it for himself. In view of the Bill's effects on the area and of the fact that there appears to be a setback in the progress of improving those properties, my request for a visit is thoroughly reasonable and justified and I hope that the Minister will accede to that some time later this year.

§ Mr. Trippier

I am anxious to take up the kind invitation that the hon. Member for Perry Barr has extended to me and to pay an official visit to his constituency. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. I genuinely believe that, as a result of his two most recent contributions, he deserves all the local publicity that he can get. I mean that sincerely, because I know that his purpose is to assist those people whom he is so anxious to represent.

However, the straightforward answer is that not only is it possible to transfer from a housing action area to a housing renewal area, but for those that are determined, acceptable and in the pipeline, it would be advantageous for them to do so. Therefore, I do not see any difficulty in giving the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. If I can pay the so-called official visit sooner rather than later, perhaps we can do whatever we can to improve the situation and the lives of the people living in those areas.