HL Deb 10 July 1991 vol 530 cc1461-6

7.20 p.m.

Viscount Astor rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 10th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, housing action trusts are about the difficult and complex task of regenerating our worst council housing estates—some of which are judged to be beyond a local authority's capacity. The FIAT provides government, tenants and local housing authorities with a fresh approach to the development and management of such difficult estates.

The essence of the HAT is a good working relationship between all interested parties. Tenants have to vote for the proposal to set up a HAT before one can be established by parliamentary order. The role of the local authority in fostering tenant support is also clearly critical during the pre-ballot consultation, but in the final analysis the HAT is the tenants' choice. In North Hull the city council and the shadow HAT chairman put the interest of the tenants foremost and the tenants voted resoundingly in favour of the HAT. The North Hull result is very gratifying for the Government, Hull City Council and not least the people of the area. It reflects a good deal of consultation with residents in general and confirms the view that sometimes a special ad hoc body with the support of central and local government and the residents may be the best way to proceed.

The proposed HAT area forms part of the North Hull estate and contains a total of 2,436 dwellings, of which 2,109 are council owned and 327 are owner-occupied through the right to buy. There are two distinct areas totalling approximately 80 hectares with a population of approximately 7,000. Detailed maps have been laid before the House and a sketch is provided at the hack of the order.

The houses and environment have received virtually no investment for 60 years, and this is reflected in the level of disrepair and lack of basic modern facilities. The potential of the area as Hull's economic base gradually diversifies is an important factor. The HAT will establish strong links with the Orchard Park and North Hull local economic initiative, which the city and Humberside County Council have set up to create new economic activity, jobs for local people and improved quality of life.

Hull City Council saw a HAT as the only vehicle which would ensure regeneration of the estate before the spiral of decline accelerated out of all control. The council therefore took the initiative in producing a feasibility study and approaching the Government. Between November 1990 and January 1991, Ministers and the council agreed a policy framework. The council then intensified its consultation with residents. The council and Tenants' Residents' Association agreed that the Secretary of State should hold a ballot during late March.

Ministers supported this effort by appointing a full "shadow board" before the ballot. This comprised Mr. David Liggins, Managing Director of York Consulting Ltd., as chairman designate; Councillor John Black, Hull City Council housing committee chairman, as deputy chairman designate, and nine other members, of whom five were nominated by the department and four by the council and tenants. Mr. Liggins played a major role in the preparation for the ballot of tenants, attending several public meetings, where he was assisted by other shadow board members. The successful outcome of the ballot reflected the spirit of partnership and teamwork between tenants, council, shadow HAT and the Government.

A community planning weekend—the first of its kind in the region—was sponsored by the shadow HAT in May 1991 to start the process of open discussion among residents, the city council, shadow HAT and providers of other local services on all relevant issues which affect the North Hull estate. The resulting report, The Next Six Months, sets out the issues and opportunities and recommended an action programme.

The debate on this order in another place made clear that this is an important juncture in the development of the HATs policy. Two points were raised there on which I should perhaps comment now. Both relate to the terms on which the trust may transfer property and the role of tenants in determining who their future landlord will be. The Housing Act 1988 provides that in disposing of any land a housing action trust will require the Secretary of State's consent, and will be subject to any directions he may give. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has already indicated in another place that the Government's consent would not be forthcoming if the trust's proposals did not properly take account of tenants' wishes. Furthermore, if any property is left for disposal when eventually the trust comes to be wound up, the trust has to put its proposals to the Secretary of State. I mention this only to remove misconceptions that may have arisen. There is no doubt about the general intentions of both the shadow board of the Hull trust and the Government. Both have made clear to tenants their policies of consulting tenants about their wishes and giving them a real and effective choice of landlord after the trust—whether that would be a tenants' co-operative, housing association or return to the council, or encouraging them to exercise their right to buy.

That is backed up by statutory requirements that, before a trust applies to the Secretary of State for consent to transfer tenanted housing, the trust must first consult the local housing authority and then individually consult each secure tenant of the housing concerned. That consultation is in addition to any other forms of consultation which the trust may decide to undertake with tenants about their wishes which might, for example, be done with tenants collectively and with their representative associations.

Finally, if HAT tenants wished, they could still use tenants choice procedures to choose a landlord, which could include a tenant co-operative approved by the Housing Corporation under Part IV of the Housing Act 1988. All that provides considerable reassurance for tenants. However, when we have had experience of the first few HATs in operation we will review the legislation, and that would include the question of enshrining in law tenants' rights additional to those they already have.

That interest in the HATs option is growing fast, has been clearly demonstrated by the support in principle now coming from Liverpool City Council and, today, the Bow neighbourhood of Tower Hamlets.

My honourable friend the Minister for Housing has today announced in another place guidelines for future HAT proposals, and will invite local authorities to submit bids. That invitation will also extend to areas which have previously proved unwilling to implement HAT proposals. All the resulting proposals would be considered alongside one another on their merits in the light of the available public expenditure provision. But I must emphasise that existing commitments to fund the proposals in Hull and Waltham Forest—if Waltham Forest tenants vote in favour later this month—will be unaffected. I commend the order to the House.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Astor.)

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his detailed explanation of the order. He has certainly filled in a good many of the blanks. I start from the premise that many of the areas that have deteriorated into potential HAT areas would not have so deteriorated but for the massive cuts in the finances allowed to local authorities. Local authorities have not even been allowed to use their own money. For instance, £33 billion was raised by the sale of council houses. The Government reneged on their promise, made when the Bill introducing the mandatory sale of council houses was going through Parliament, that the money would be available to local authorities to build new houses and for improvement and maintenance schemes. It is a sad fact of life that that did not take place. Local authorities are allowed to spend only a small part of the capital raised. There is no point in the Minister saying that some of the money is raised in areas where housing need is not great. I believe that where there is housing need and there are capital receipts, the council should be allowed to use them. That is my first point.

However, it has become obvious that the sums of money originally required were cut. I believe that the estimate was that, had the system of financing of local authority housing remained the same as it was at the end of 1979, we would have had 500,000 more houses in the public sector to let. However, that is not an option; it, too, has gone.

I was interested to hear the Minister speak about resources. I have a copy of the Statement that the Minister for Housing and Planning, Sir George Young, made today in another place. I have referred to the fact that massive resources were taken away. While HATs may seem attractive to local authorities, I believe that that is only because it is the only choice open to them: they either accept these HATs, or the houses will deteriorate.

I do not intend to refer at length to the Statement made by the Minister in another place. I have no doubt that we shall return to the situation when other areas proposed for HATs are discussed. I believe that local authorities have accepted the proposal because it means an increase in money, although they will not really be allowed to use it. Nevertheless, it may solve some of their worst problems. I believe that they are faced with what can only be described as Hobson's choice.

I was glad that the Minister spoke of the two specific answers given in the Statement in another place. I refer to the fact that the Secretary of State will operate certain powers in certain circumstances if he thinks that it is in the interest of the tenants. I hope that the tenants' interest will always be paramount in any action taken by the Secretary of State.

Before I conclude, can the Minister say whether the money mentioned in the Statement today is new money—I believe that it is about £240 million—or money which has been creamed off from somewhere else and which is being reprocessed on the basis of funding an increased HAT programme? I gave the Minister notice about an area which I have in mind of which I have personal knowledge, although not in as much detail as I should like. I refer to a large overspill estate on the north—side of Manchester known as Langley. The Member of Parliament in another place for that area—namely, the constituency of Heywood and Middleton—Mr. James Callaghan, who is a friend of mine, has fought an unceasing battle on behalf of the people who live on the estate. It is in a very serious situation. In fact, only last week Mr. Callaghan brought a delegation to London to meet Mrs. Virginia Bottomley to discuss the social problems on the estate. They are indeed immense.

I have read through the Statement which was made today in another place. On looking at the suggested criteria which the Minister loosely explained—of course, one has to wait and see what it really means and hew these new guidelines can be applied—it seems to me that Langley would meet every one of them. I believe that this is an outstanding case. It was an overspill estate built after the war when housing was certainly not of the standard to which we aspire today. As I slid, the deterioration has been pretty graphic and, according to my information, the estate is in very poor condition.

Can the Minister say what effect the Statement made in another place today will have on the prospects of the tenants on the Langley Estate? Will it mean that their estate will be updated so that the quality of life they will enjoy will be commensurate with that of other people living on better council estates and in other owner-occupier areas? I single out this particular estate because I know about it and I know of the unrelenting battle that Mr. Callaghan has fought on behalf of those who live in the area. If there is anything that the Government can do to assist his campaign to improve the quality of life on that estate, I am sure that it would be well received.

Having said that, I have no further comments to make. However, I shall watch the development of events with interest. As I said, I am still of the opinion that the HAT scheme is being accepted because almost every other alternative has been removed by the Government's policies.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for his welcome to the order. It has been supported not only by the Member of Parliament for the area but also by the local council, which, I am disappointed to say, is what one may describe as "overwhelmingly" in opposition to the Government. However, they have both supported the proposals.

The HAT scheme is not about new houses; it is about existing houses which have suffered from a very long—term lack of investment. It is not a recent occurrence. Such lack of investment goes back over many years. Obviously we are trying to improve the situation.

The noble Lord raised two points. He asked first about money. The provision for HATs is about £70 million per annum. That is not new money but it is separate local authority provision. Therefore, it is not, so to speak, "creamed off- from elsewhere. Moreover, Ministers will consider whether additional resources for HATs should be provided in the light of applications which come forward under the guidelines announced today by the Minister.

The noble Lord mentioned the Langley Estate in Rochdale. We are not aware of any suggestion of a HAT scheme for the Langley Estate. However, I am pleased to be able to tell the noble Lord that we are currently considering proposals for the first phase (costing £18 million) of a £30 million estate action scheme submitted by Manchester City Council. Obviously, it is up to any local authority to apply to the department with such proposals as it may have.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, is the Minister saying that if the Government acquiesce in the proposals submitted by Manchester City Council—it is, in fact, the landlord—it would remain with the council to decide whether Langley received the priority that I think it should have?

Viscount Astor

My Lords, I am saying that Langley has not made any suggestion to the Government about a HAT scheme. It is up to those concerned to consult the Government and say that they wish to discuss such proposals as they may wish to put forward. I am sure that my honourable friend the Minister will consider the matter. I should point out to the noble Lord that we are indeed looking at proposals in that area at present. Therefore, consultations are taking place.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, the point I am trying to make is that, unless this is done by a HAT scheme, it seems to me that there is very little chance of money being processed through to that particular area. Although it is the only money available, it is still a second choice.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, I can only tell the noble Lord that we are considering proposals involving a large amount of money for the estate action scheme submitted by the council. That is not an inconsiderable amount of money.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, I am sorry to intervene yet again. However, can the Minister tell me the sum of money for which Manchester is negotiating?

Viscount Astor

My Lords, I am happy to do that. We are considering proposals for a first phase, costing £18 million, of a £30 million estate action scheme submitted by Manchester City Council.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Viscount Long

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until twenty minutes past eight.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The sitting was suspended from 7.40 to 8.20 p.m.]