§ Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Canning Town)I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the lack of affordable housing in London. The debate is timely, as Londoners will have the opportunity to vote yes to a mayor and an assembly in tomorrow's referendum. I am sure that a yes vote will help to tackle many other pan-London problems.
The lack of affordable housing in the capital is widely recognised. My constituency straddles the boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Newham. Despite far-sighted schemes in those boroughs, there is still a chronic lack of affordable social housing. According to the Association of London Government, about 75,000 households in London suffer from overcrowding. The housing that does exist is too expensive, and Shelter calculates that average council rents in London are 32 per cent. higher than the average for England. Not surprisingly, the private rented market has not provided a solution. Private sector rents are more than twice as high in London as in England as a whole.
The future does not look bright. The London Research Centre has estimated that accommodation for 26,000 extra households will be needed in London between 1991 and 2011, but only about 16,000 units are likely to be built. In short, the supply of all housing, particularly affordable housing, in London falls far below demand.
Let me list the major obstacles to affordable housing in London. First, there is the cost of land in London. Property developers currently consider east London a gold mine. Not only are house prices rising rapidly, but the price of land that has not already been built on is rising equally fast. Alas, the new developments are not, by and large, social housing. The phenomenon of luxury apartments and exclusive developments has become common to east Londoners.
Our election pledge to ensure a phased release of housing receipts will, of course, make a difference, but it is by no means the whole answer. Estate renewal challenge fund money has made a valuable difference in my constituency, and Tower Hamlets has developed HARCA—the Housing and Regeneration Community Association—as a stand-alone housing company. I know that the Minister for London and Construction is more than familiar with that concept, as he is widely credited with promoting such schemes throughout the United Kingdom. Tenant involvement, money for community activities and extra investment in housing stock are all welcome.
The recent statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on developments on brown-field sites was also welcome. However, many of those sites are heavily polluted. Locke's wharf, on the Isle of Dogs in my constituency, is a prime example. If such sites are to be developed safely, the cost of development will inevitably be raised.
There are those who say that the Government cannot, or even should not, try to intervene. I do not believe that to be just or right. An estimated 45,000 people are homeless in London, living in hostels, squats, bed-and-breakfast accommodation and short-term accommodation. That is in addition to the scandal that about 1,000 people sleep rough on the streets. 677 For many, social housing can be the first step on the ladder to employment. It takes people off the streets, and gives them an address so that they can apply for jobs. It would be wrong in a debate such as this not to mention The Big Issue, and not to commend all those involved—especially the vendors—for their work with and for the homeless.
For people with children, social housing provides stability. It gives children a chance to attend school regularly, and provides them with somewhere to do their homework. If we are serious about tackling social exclusion, we must be serious about tackling the lack of affordable housing in London.
As well as housing provided by the local authorities and HARCA in Tower Hamlets and Newham, there are co-operatives and housing associations which are trying to meet needs, but failing because we have a chronic problem. At the end of 1997, in Tower Hamlets alone, 2,868 families were on the borough's waiting list for properties with four or more bedrooms. Of those, 212 had urgent medical priority, 250 had medical priority A, nearly 230 had priority B and more than 200 had priority C. However, the council has only about 120 such properties a year. Teenage girls have to share rooms, and sometimes beds, with their fathers and older brothers. At the end of the 20th century, in the capital of the United Kingdom, that is intolerable.
The Association of London Government has calculated that 100,000 additional affordable family homes are needed to meet the current shortfall in the capital. There are many exciting initiatives, such as the Solartown and Silvertown project, which is promoted by Greenpeace and the Peabody trust. That landmark project has doubled the number of solar-powered homes in Britain, and it is the first solar housing project in London. However, although Solartown is worthy, and should be copied, the problem will not be solved by such small projects. We need a national drive to ensure that the homes that our people need are built, and provided at a cost that people can afford.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has a special interest and expertise in housing, which he has developed over many years. He commands great respect from housing professionals, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say on the issues that I have raised.
§ Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park and Kensington, North)I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and the Minister for allowing me some time in this debate. I am keen to speak on the principle that affordable housing is one of the central strands in a strategy to tackle social exclusion. Given that we are right to tackle the "ghettoising" of poor families on the worst estates, we must also deal with the distribution of low-cost housing in all parts of the city. There can be no no-go areas for low-income families.
We shall not have the opportunity today to deal in depth with several practicalities, although my hon. Friend has touched on some. To create an effective strategy for affordable housing would mean bringing together the issues of planning, housing finance, housing benefit and 678 parking, along with many others. I hope that we shall have another opportunity to consider some of them in more detail.
§ Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon)Does my hon. Friend agree that much could be done by way of section 106 agreements when private developers apply for planning permission? For example, my local authority—Barnet—has negotiated for 17 of the 60 homes being built by John Laing in the Page street development in my constituency to be rented through the Paddington Churches housing association. Is that the sort of thing that my hon. Friend has in mind when she mentions planning?
§ Ms BuckI entirely agree, and my hon. Friend is right to commend his local authority. I shall a mention a couple of similar issues later.
Before I reach the core of what I want to say in the few minutes available, I want to pay two quick tributes. First, the London Pride partnership produced an excellent report earlier this year on affordable housing in London. It set out several of the issues with which government, the local authorities and the London assembly and mayor—for which we hope to win approval tomorrow—must deal. I also pay tribute to CHICL—Communities and Homes in Central London. I was fortunate enough to address its annual general meeting a couple of weeks ago. It has a proud record of campaigning with and for residents' organisations throughout central London in the face of the development pressures that my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town has talked about.
I, CHICL and many other organisations are proud of, and welcome, the Government's early support for affordable housing through both the release of capital receipts, which has made a welcome contribution to affordable housing development, and the recent issue of circular 6/98, which underpins the emphasis on brown-field sites for housing development by stressing local authorities' opportunities to negotiate affordable housing in developments. However, there are many formidable problems in achieving the outcomes that circular 6/98 rightly emphasises.
My hon. Friend mentioned the pressure on land prices. That is a problem throughout London. He rightly drew attention to east London, but in central London the problem is absolutely critical. It is being exacerbated daily by London's importance as a global city, with international and corporate money flooding into the centre of London, squeezing out private tenure in particular and putting great pressure on private housing development for purchase.
At the CHICL AGM, I was interested to hear from a leading property consultant that the average house price for purchase in central London is now £370,000, which makes a mockery of the ability of people on lower incomes to purchase, but the most important reason for welcoming today's debate is a local one. The constituency that I represent, which spans part of Westminster and of Kensington, is at the sharp end of the pressure on home prices and of much housing need.
Westminster, on which I shall concentrate, commissioned a housing needs study last year, which showed that 12,095 households, or 12.5 per cent. of the total population, were living in unsuitable housing. Of those, 3,320 people were in priority need. Over half of 679 the households—54 per cent. —earned less than £10,000 a year. Only just over 10 per cent. would be able to access property on market rents.
I know from my case load—I am sure that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), whom I am pleased to see here, will know this from his—just how intense is the pressure on housing need. Despite that pressure—some would say because of it—Westminster council has, over the past decade, been embroiled in political controversy over affordable housing. The homes-for-votes scandal, which ended in the High Court before Christmas, was about affordable homes: who gets what and who goes where.
§ Mr. DismoreMay I suggest that my hon. Friend contrasts Westminster council's record in failing to provide affordable housing with my local authority of Barnet, which is under Labour control and which, in Mill Hill, negotiated two years ago, with the Ministry of Defence and Notting Hill housing trust, the purchase of 96 homes for rent? The council has just completed a further deal with Annington Homes in the same estate, which is ex-MOD property, for a further 48 homes, which are now empty and available for rent. Is that not a much better contrast: Labour providing affordable homes and Conservatives failing to do so?
§ Ms BuckAgain, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I shall drive that contrast home in the couple of minutes remaining to me.
City hall has learnt little from either last year's change of Government or the homes-for-votes ruling in the High Court. Current thinking continues to undermine attempts to secure a proper mix of affordable housing throughout the city. I have two concerns that I wish quickly to flag up: who benefits from affordable housing, or the definition of affordability, and where the affordable housing goes.
On who benefits, the council continues to undermine the desperate need for affordable housing, which is confirmed by its own study, by debating whether affordable housing provision should be accessible to households on incomes of between £29,000 and £50,000 per year as opposed to low-income households—the 54 per cent. who have an income of less than £10,000 a year—and how much priority should be given to the needs of local residents over the needs of commuters.
The second issue relates to the provision of homes on site in developments versus the acceptance of commutable sums. I welcome the new circular's emphasis on on-site provision, but, in practice, I am deeply concerned about what is going on, especially given the council's record over the past decade. In the past couple of years, the council has built up a fund of more than £3 million in commutable sums, mostly from developments in the south and centre of the city: Westminster hospital, ITN house in the west end and Beynards house in Bayswater are just three examples.
Meanwhile, affordable housing is being concentrated increasingly in deprived and highly pressurised wards in the north of the city: for example, there are 1,000 bed spaces of housing association property in north Paddington and off the Harrow road. An excellent contrast is drawn by the case of Clarendon court, of which I know the Minister is aware. That contained homes in multiple 680 occupation. I was actively involved in the matter a couple of years ago. It was a cockroach-infested slum which was home to more than 200 people, with fewer than six kitchens available to them. It was located in a marginal ward in Westminster.
I was pleased that that HMO was closed and that people were relocated from it, but the development under consideration is to convert that building into 100 executive homes with on-site parking. It is no surprise that it is in a marginal ward, or that the council is considering accepting a commutable sum for the Clarendon court development, which will be spent again, I expect, in deprived and pressured wards in the north, which are already highly over-concentrated with council and housing association property.
Worse still, in terms of scale, are the plans for the development of the Paddington basin and goods yard. The council is in danger of sacrificing the best opportunity this decade to secure a decent proportion of affordable housing in that part of central London. Last week, Westminster's town planning sub-committee gave outline, "in principle" approval to schemes that contain no on-site provision and a commutable sum that is £1 million less than is consistent even with the council's guidelines. Paddington Basins Development Ltd., with Rialto Homes Ltd. and Frogmore Estates, have been given the thumbs up to a scheme that enables them to avoid any on-site housing in the first phase of the development, in exchange for an unenforceable statement of intent about the provision of affordable housing in stage 2.
Even in the event of that going ahead, the scale of provision is wholly inadequate for what is needed. Incidentally, many other concerns about the development of the Paddington special policy area, which runs along the southern border of my constituency, are increasingly being voiced by individuals and community groups in my constituency, ranging from design, to density to car-parking provision, to which we will have to return.
Frankly, for Westminster city council to be making decisions on affordable housing provision in the week that circular 6/98 was published shows little more than contempt for the Government's position on affordable housing. I know that the Minister can say nothing about the specifics of the case this morning, but I wanted the opportunity to put on the record the grave concerns that I, some of my colleagues in Westminster, and resident and community organisations in the north of the borough have about the potential loss of opportunity for affordable housing, even though the developments that I have spoken about provide many opportunities.
I should welcome it if the Minister took this opportunity to drive home the Government's message on the need for local authorities to secure the full proportion of affordable housing and to stress the importance of on-site provision, wherever possible. If we do not manage to achieve that or a balance throughout the range of housing provision, the worst estates, the ghettos of the poor, will continue to face on the other side of the road the gated communities of the rich. We shall all pay the price for that.
§ The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town 681 (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on securing this debate on the important subject of affordable housing in London. He made a powerful speech, highlighting the scale and range of problems and I thank him for his kind remarks about my involvement in the subject. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town, has taken a keen interest in housing in the year since she was elected to represent her constituents. Both have done a real service by highlighting the scale of housing problems that still afflict too many people in our capital city. I welcome the fact that many other hon. Members, in particular several of my hon. Friends, have come to show their concern.
Housing in London has very special characteristics that mark it out from housing in the rest of the country. London contains 16 of the 22 most deprived local authorities in England and has two thirds of the most deprived housing estates. Furthermore, over one third of England's stock of flats and maisonettes is in London. London also accounts for over 40 per cent. of England's high-rise housing—which is housing of 10 storeys or more. If medium-rise properties—housing with more than four storeys—are included, the figure rises to over 60 per cent. London has the largest social rented sector of any of the English regions, and 18 per cent. of all those in England who live in the local authority sector live in London.
The Government have a key role to play in helping to meet London's housing needs. We invest heavily in the social rented sector through the housing investment programme—which this year will provide £162 million for local authorities, with a further £33 million to be invested in private sector renewal. Additionally, the Housing Corporation invests £307 million in the housing association sector through the approved development programme. Taken together, investment this year involves a total of about £0.5 billion.
The Government realise that that investment is not nearly enough to address the backlog of repairs and maintenance that has accrued over the past 18 years, which London local authorities estimate to be £5 billion, mostly in inner London.
§ Mr. DismoreMy hon. Friend is specifically addressing housing issues in inner London. Is there not also a substantial problem in providing affordable housing in outer London constituencies, such as mine and that represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty)? Is not one option in dealing with the problem to form partnerships—such as that in Claremont road, in Barnet, where the local authority, working with Fairview builders and the Network housing association, has produced a mixed development providing 110 affordable rental housing units, a nursing home and a community centre?
§ Mr. RaynsfordI take entirely on board my hon. Friend's comments on the extent of housing needs in areas of outer London, such as Barnet, where he has been working assiduously to tackle those needs, to help his constituents secure better housing.
Last year, faced with those problems in London, the Government acted quickly to implement our manifesto commitment to provide additional resources for housing 682 and housing-related regeneration under the capital receipts initiative. In this financial year, London authorities will receive £167 million through the capital receipts initiative. We realised that many of the local authorities with the greatest need to invest in their housing stock had relatively low levels of receipts set aside. We therefore established a system to redistribute receipts as credit approvals to authorities—using as a basis two thirds of need, and one third of historic receipts set aside from, for example, right-to-buy sales.
The inner London boroughs—those traditionally with the greatest need, but with relatively small receipts—gain considerably from that system. Inner London accounts for about 6 per cent. of the country's housing, but, this year, is receiving about 17 per cent. of the national allocation of capital receipts.
We expect individual local authorities to identify their own local priorities in applying extra spending power. However, many London authorities—once they have dealt with their immediate need to spend on their own stock—will turn their attention to new social housing provision by working in partnership with registered social landlords. This year, London authorities expect to spend about 18 per cent. of the available resources from capital receipts on such provision.
I have mentioned the need for improvement in the private sector, where many people live in poor conditions. Many elderly people—of whom there are a large number in outer London areas, such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) —live in houses that they own outright, but do not have the means to maintain them. A grant under part I of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 towards the cost of repairs, improvements or adaptations to their home may enable such elderly people to stay in their home.
Discretionary house renovation grants may be given for major repairs or improvements, and disabled facilities grants for adaptations may enable disabled people to continue living in their homes. Home repair assistance may be given for more minor works of repair or improvement. All those grants can help to solve housing problems.
Housing must not be considered in isolation. Housing issues are closely interwoven with the other social issues of our day—such as welfare dependency, unemployment, poor education and crime. It is a matter not only of providing a roof over people's heads, but of working in an holistic manner to ensure that we find effective solutions to a range of problems. Housing is an integral part of the Government's broader agenda in tackling disadvantage and giving people a decent quality of life. It is about building community pride, by giving people opportunities and some influence and control over their daily lives.
Our housing agenda lies behind the Prime Minister's decision to establish a special unit in the Cabinet Office to secure concerted Government action to tackle social exclusion. It is no coincidence that one of the unit's top priorities is to deal with the problem of housing estates suffering from multiple deprivation and problems including crime, drug abuse, unemployment, community breakdown, poor schooling, low expectations and low attainment levels. The unit is due shortly to report on those issues and on rough sleeping—which is another issue of particular concern to London. 683 London has more than its fair share of housing problems, but it also has a wealth of experience in promoting anti-exclusion schemes through a range of programmes, including the single regeneration budget. We are pooling the knowledge, experience and ideas of those involved to provide a strong London input to the work of the social exclusion unit, which I hope will make an effective and lasting input in dealing with the problems of social exclusion.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North said, planning policies have a significant role to play in housing. The Government's current policy on planning and affordable housing encourages private builders to help meet affordable housing requirements by providing a mix of housing types in their proposals. Planning policy guidance note 3 encourages local planning authorities to seek an element of affordable housing in significant new housing developments.
We have recently issued circular 6/98, to replace circular 13/96 and to clarify how the delivery of affordable housing may be assisted through negotiation with developers. The main change introduced in the circular lowers the size thresholds above which local planning authorities may seek the inclusion of affordable housing. Those have generally been lowered from 40 dwellings and 1.5 hectare to 25 dwellings and I hectare, irrespective of the number of dwellings. In inner London, the size thresholds have been reduced from 25 dwellings and 1 hectare to 15 dwellings and 0.5 of a hectare, irrespective of the number of dwellings.
The revised arrangements also provide, in exceptional circumstances, for local authorities in outer London to seek to adopt a lower threshold, through the local planning process. The arrangements will help further to increase the supply of affordable housing delivered through planning policy.
The circular is intended to provide a clearer framework and to help local authorities adopt more realistic and consistent approaches in preparing planning policies and handling applications involving affordable housing. It is also intended to encourage a more co-operative approach in preparing planning policies, to ensure that the views of all those involved in housing delivery—including providers and enablers—are taken into account.
When a local planning authority is able to demonstrate a lack of affordable housing, based on a robust assessment of local housing needs, it is advised to include a policy in the plan for seeking affordable housing. Such policies should define what the authority considers to be affordable, having regard to local income levels and house prices. I specifically note the comments on local income levels and house prices in Westminster made by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North.
The assessment of need should also provide the justification for local authorities to estimate a specified proportion of affordable housing for suitable sites that 684 might become available. Such an approach will more accurately establish the amount of affordable homes needed, and enable housing and planning policies to focus on the particular problems and opportunities in a local area.
Therefore, where there is evidence of need for affordable housing within a London borough, we expect the local authority to seek the inclusion of affordable housing in all new housing proposals on suitable sites above the size threshold.
By providing a clearer framework for planning policies, circular 6/98 will facilitate speedier and more effective negotiations and decisions on planning applications involving affordable housing. However, both local planning authorities and developers will have to be more flexible in decisions on affordable housing provision. The message we are receiving from developers is that they are willing to negotiate with planning authorities, provided that they have in place policies that clearly show the way in which the authority intends to implement affordable housing policy. Those policies should also be consistent with the Government's advice.
The Government wish to optimise the contribution that the planning system can make to the overall supply of affordable housing. We wish also to ensure that there is certainty in the planning process, and that the overall supply of housing is not unduly hindered. Those objectives are especially important given the need to accommodate increasing numbers of new households, and to maximise the use of recycled land—brown-field sites—and existing buildings for that purpose. We must therefore ensure that affordable housing policies are consistent with guidance, consistently applied. I consider that our planning policy will help to optimise the contribution that the planning system can make to the overall supply of affordable housing in London.
The future of housing provision and housing finance is currently being considered in our housing comprehensive spending review, which is being conducted jointly by my Department and the Department of Social Security. Our principal objective is that everyone should have the opportunity to have a decent home. We are reviewing all housing programmes to ensure that they help us meet that objective.
The review is considering all housing programmes from first principles, and asking what they achieve and whether they are efficient and effective. We have received contributions from a wide range of housing organisations, and we are consulting on the best way to implement proposals arising from the review. All views are being taken into account as the review is carried forward. Conclusions from the review will be announced in the summer as part of our general spending plans.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)Order. We must now move on to the debate on the Territorial Army.