Inner London Housing

HC Deb 19 January 2000 vol 342 cc241-9WH 12.30 pm

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

I welcome the opportunity to hold this brief debate. I also welcome the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who looks more like a Minister than I have ever known him to do, and I have known him for a long time. I am glad that he will reply to the debate, because, although the housing problems that he faces in his constituency are different from those in inner London, he has a good understanding of the life of people in inner London. I hope, therefore, that he will have some sympathy over the issues that I shall raise.

I have chosen inner London housing as the subject of the debate because the problems there are different from those in the rest of the country. A vacant housing agency has been set up by the Government. Members of Parliament from north-western and north-eastern constituencies frequently complain about the large number of unlettable council properties in their areas—that is a fairly common phenomenon in that region, and raises specific issues that need to be tackled.

However, the situation in inner London is completely different. Every week, my constituency surgery is full of people with desperate housing problems. Those problems impinge on many other parts of people's lives. We must consider that. Recently, a document jointly produced by the London Housing Unit and the Association of London Government set out starkly how poor quality housing affects people's lives.

I shall not quote the whole document, as that would take up the half-hour allocated for the debate, so I shall deal specifically with educational achievement. Teachers in any inner London primary or secondary school will tell us that children living in bed-and-breakfast or hostel accommodation, or grossly overcrowded council accommodation, suffer in many ways. They suffer because they do not have their own bedroom—something that all of us would want for our children—so they cannot do their homework and keep up with other children.

If a child has to share a bedroom with a couple of brothers or sisters, that is extremely unhealthy—especially for older children. Furthermore—on a practical matter—if one child is ill, all the children become ill. In an overcrowded household, the incidence of cross-infection is much higher than elsewhere. If children do not have their own bedroom, where can they do their homework? Homework clubs are fine; they are wonderful, I welcome and support them. However, children should be able to do their homework in their own home and in their own time. That is important.

Truancy rates are higher among children who live in overcrowded accommodation. Often their parents are much poorer. Increasingly, London is becoming a two-class society. In any primary school, one can see which kids have computers and good housing and who are achieving in school. One can also see children who are equally as bright, enthusiastic and intelligent, but do not have computers at home and do not have the same facilities as others. We owe it to our children to ensure that they have decent housing.

If I might migrate slightly—from the school to the doctor's surgery, or to the local hospital—we can consider the incidence of notifiable diseases and serious health problems, such as bronchial pneumonia. One can often trace those problems straight back to housing. My general practitioner, who works in my constituency, asked me, only half joking, "Why don't we swap surgeries one week, because we're seeing the same people?" Their real problem is not health, but poverty and housing. My GP told me to do my best to improve their housing and he would do his best to improve their health. However, the two matters are closely linked. If one takes into account such matters as the nutrition of people who live in poor quality housing, one can see the whole pattern.

In the attitudes of many of our young people—those in their mid-teens and older youths—towards education and life in general, I detect a sense of anger and dislocation, and a lack of belonging, because they have not had the same opportunities as others. That can often be traced back to inadequate housing. There is no lack of love on the part of their parents, nor a lack of desire to keep the family together. Their main problems are economic and are to do with housing. That is what we must try to tackle.

In inner London overall, there is a serious shortfall of housing.

Mr. Tony Colman (Putney)

Does my hon. Friend agree that that has been especially exacerbated in Tory-controlled Wandsworth? There, the situation is much worse, because the council has sold a large quantity of its social housing stock to people outside the housing waiting list, as part of its continued mad idea that such housing is not needed. Does he agree that it is important for the Government to be able to haul in Wandsworth council to try to stop that process, given the inner London housing crisis that he so eloquently describes?

Mr. Corbyn

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which he made at just the right time; I was about to refer to the sale of council properties.

Last Sunday, on "Crosstalk", I debated poverty in London with the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). She held up Westminster and Wandsworth as paragons of virtue. I pointed out that both those authorities, where a significant number of extremely poor people live in substandard accommodation, had been involved not only in the legal sale of council housing, which local authorities are forced to undertake under the right to buy legislation, but had engaged in the wholesale removal from the social register of council tenants and council properties, and had exported their homeless people to other far-flung boroughs. That issue must be examined.

I entirely accept my hon. Friend's suggestion. I hope that the Minister will ask those two authorities—especially Wandsworth—what they are doing by continuing that policy of disposing of empty publicly owned buildings. There is a big difference between that and the sale of housing to existing tenants under the right to buy.

The Housing Corporation, which funds the construction of buildings by housing associations, has constantly had its funding cut. That has not occurred only under the Labour Government; it is part of a long continuum whereby the corporation's capital allocation has been reduced and it must rely increasingly on the private sector for funding. That leads to a disparity between the rents in housing association and local authority properties. That is a serious matter.

If a tenant receives housing benefit, the rent disparity does not make much difference. However, when tenants are trying to find a job, it makes an enormous difference. If they find a job and live in a housing association property with a lower rent than a council property, the gap between being on benefit and working is more favourable than it would be if their property had a high rent—a positive disincentive is created. That matter must be considered.

The total number in the queue for affordable housing in London is about 178,000—an enormous figure. In my own borough, the number is 12,000, of whom several hundred are on the priority list at any one time. That figure masks many inequities and inequalities. To get on to the housing waiting list, it is not just a matter of going to the town hall, the council office or—in my borough—the neighbourhood office and putting oneself on the list. People are included on the list only if they are in significant housing need and if they are not single. Single people, who have no particular medical problems and no requirement to support anyone else, do not go on to the housing list. The number of people in housing need is thus much higher than that figure of 178,000.

When my hon. Friend the Minister examines housing statistics, as he obviously does, will he reconsider the problems that are faced by single people? I give hon. Members an example. A week ago, a single man visited my advice surgery; he explained, reasonably, his housing problems and said that he was trying to find a job. He is due to attend various interviews, so hopefully he will be successful. However, he cannot find anywhere to live because he cannot afford any privately rented accommodation locally. He would be eligible for housing benefit if he could find private accommodation, but he cannot raise the deposit. He is being asked for deposits of more than £1,000 to rent a small flat in the borough of Islington; there is no way that he can raise that.

Either we must consider introducing rent controls in the private sector or we must look at the role of the Department of Social Security in helping to support people in raising a deposit for a privately rented flat. Many single people simply cannot raise the large amount needed for a deposit, and therefore cannot move into a privately rented flat. Meanwhile, landlords increasingly say that they are not interested in people who are on benefit. It is a vicious circle that must be looked at.

Rented accommodation is only part of the issue. Home ownership in London also features in the equation. In the great scheme of things, London certainly has a much higher proportion of council-owned or housing association-owned property than does the south-east as a whole, or, probably, most of the country outside the great industrial cities of the midlands and the north, but house prices are very high. People who own property in London are seen to be on a ladder to permanent wealth, and permanent growth in that wealth.

However, in the borough that I represent, which is not very different from the rest of inner London, prices are rising very rapidly. In my borough, it would cost about £150,000—sometimes as much as £200,000—to buy a one-bedroom flat for single person or a couple.

The cheapest flat that I have seen on sale anywhere in my borough recently was £80,000. Out of curiosity, I went to look at it. It had one bedroom, a living room-kitchen-diner in one room and a very small bathroom, and was on the second floor of a four-storey Victorian building on Holloway road, above a shop. Holloway road is a major road, by any stretch of the imagination. The flat had been well cared for by the current owner, but it was still priced at more than £80,000—for a very small flat where no one could think of bringing up children in a normal way.

The long-term effect of the very rapidly rising prices in inner London is that if a family in housing need cannot get on to the housing list and therefore cannot be nominated to a housing association property or a council property, they must rent privately—for which they need to raise a large deposit and in which they have no long-term guarantee of tenure—or buy, or move out of the borough.

Throughout inner London—Islington, Hackney, Camden, Lambeth and Lewisham—we are witnessing a rapid migration out of people on average or below average income and a rapid migration in of desperately homeless people who are housed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and often wait a very long time to get any housing, and of wealthier people. London will rue the day that it turned its back on the social housing needs of its people, because we shall end up with an extremely polarised city.

I hope that the Minister will acknowledge several factors. I have mentioned the problems of housing and inadequate housing, but many people are completely homeless. Some of them sleep on the streets and rely on hostels for a secure roof over their head for as many nights as possible, and some are trying to bring up children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, which is even worse than bringing them up in substandard housing.

We must look for solutions. In the 1970s and early 1980s, I was a local councillor on Haringey council. I recall with great pride the year that our borough managed to provide 1,000 new dwellings. We were very proud of our achievement. Many of those dwellings were of high quality. We were trying to build homes with gardens—places that any of us would want to live in.

After the election of the Conservative Government in 1979, the provision of new dwellings dwindled to almost nothing as a result of the cutting off of funds with which local authorities could build, the denial of local authorities' right to borrow in order to build, the encouragement of a limited number of housing association developments and, increasingly, the private funding of housing associations. Indeed, in answer to a parliamentary question that I asked last year, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions told me that, in one year, the total number of new dwellings for social renting in my borough was only 205. We need far more, as does every other inner London borough.

For solutions, I refer the Minister to a valuable document called "Homelessness in London—a way out" produced jointly by the London Housing Unit and the Association of London Government. Under the heading "Immediate action", it calls for: The acquisition—over a three-year period—of 15,000 existing homes, at an estimated total cost of £497m a year. The total public sector grant would be around £1.2b over a three year period, of which 10 per cent. would be met by the boroughs, £50m from the discretionary element of current ADP and the remainder … from additional ADP. The rest would have to be raised from other sources.

The document also calls for A further increase to the current cost limits for 'existing satisfactory property' and 'purchase and repair' categories. An increase to the notional weighting given to the new homelessness indicator in the housing capital resource allocation formula. The provision of central Government revenue support for net costs of homelessness falling to the General Fund. The document then talks about new measures to be taken in the medium term to prevent homelessness occurring; such as improvements to the housing benefit system, boosting the housing advice service, improving standards in the private rented sector. Essentially, my plea to the Minister is that unless there is a significant increase in public sector investment in good-quality housing in inner London, the situation will not even mark time; it will get worse. Since the Government were elected, in May 1997, we have welcomed the release of capital receipts, the considerable amount that is being spent on the enormous backlog of housing repair, and the improvements to estates. In my borough, there is a repair backlog of £500 million. The repairs cannot all be done in one year; we are doing our best to deal with them. I hope that the declaration of a single regeneration budget area around Finsbury Park will further increase expenditure on housing.

However, better running, better administration and better improvement to existing stock do not solve the problem. The fact that the Government quite often insist on mixed developments and allow large amounts of private sector developments on land that was formerly in the public sector does nothing to fulfil the needs of the worst-off people in our society. I ask the Minister to consider very seriously increasing capital investment for local authority and housing association properties in inner London.

I mentioned housing benefit a couple of times, because it is important in many people's lives. In the early 1980s, housing benefit was given to local authorities to administer. They did not want to administer it, and indeed are penalised for doing so. In my borough, the administration has now been contracted out to a company called IT Net, largely because the council—in common with Hackney and many other boroughs—could not afford the capital necessary to invest in a new computer system.

The administration of housing benefit is appalling by any standards. Serious grief is caused. People visit me who are in desperate straits, threatened with eviction by private sector landlords because they are in arrears with their rent because housing benefit has not been paid. Others are being threatened by eviction by the local authority for being in arrears, when they are not really in arrears; it is an administrative problem.

I hope that, in monitoring the performance of the administration of housing benefit throughout the country—obviously, in the context of the debate, including London—the Minister will take note of those companies that are making a great deal of money from housing benefit but delivering an appalling service. I hope that he will take note of the vast profits that are being made by bed-and-breakfast landlords, who are getting fat on housing benefit while providing appalling housing. We need to take a serious look at the housing benefit system and perhaps invest more in bricks and mortar than in private sector landlords.

We ended the 20th century with great bangs, great fireworks and great hopes for this century. I hoped that we would have a slightly more social objective towards the start of this century. It cannot be right that, in inner London, the divisions between rich and poor are so big, and getting bigger. It cannot be right that so many children are growing up in inadequate accommodation. It cannot be right that market forces are driving the poor out of inner London and forcing the remainder to live in substandard private rented accommodation.

We must make a real effort to improve the housing conditions of the poorest people in this city. That problem can best be tackled in the way that it was tackled in the 19th century by great social reformers, such as Annie Besant, and by the London county council and many local authorities in the great building boom after the second world war. They built property for affordable rent, to give secure homes to people who would otherwise be denied them. If we deny our young people decent quality housing, we shall deny them many other things in life. I look to my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government to recognise those needs and to provide us with the investment that we need to improve housing conditions in inner London.

12.50 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin)

In his forceful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has raised many important issues. However, he has left me only nine minutes in which to respond to his many questions.

Mr. Corbyn

I beg my hon. Friend's pardon.

Mr. Mullin

At the outset, I shall address one or two of the points that my hon. Friend made. However, I may have to write to him to reply to his other questions.

My hon. Friend is right. Before I moved to Sunderland in 1985, I lived in inner London for many years. I am familiar at first hand with some of the problems that he described.

My hon. Friend mentioned the special difficulties that single people have in getting on to housing waiting lists. He is right to say that it is a serious problem, but I am aware of several schemes to deal with it. The Peabody Trust has a scheme in Hackney to help single people into housing and the Bart's and Royal London trust has a similar scheme for its employees. Those schemes are aimed primarily at finding key workers somewhere reasonable to live, but we would like to see more of them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) mentioned the position in Wandsworth and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North referred to Wandsworth and Westminster where local authorities have taken the irresponsible line of selling social housing stock and pushing the problems that they should deal with into neighbouring boroughs. That is regrettable and my officials are in an on-going dialogue with Wandsworth on that and other issues.

My hon. Friend mentioned resources. It is quite right that resources lie at the root of dealing with the huge problems that we face. However, I am sure that he accepts that it is not just a question of resources. He and I have lived in inner London for long periods and will have noticed the extraordinary incompetence and inefficiency that has occurred in some London boroughs over the years. I am glad to say that the position is getting better. We are putting much pressure on local authorities to improve their performance, and many of them have. I launched the best value housing programme this morning. I hope that it will also provide an incentive for local authorities to improve their performance. I am well aware, as my hon. Friend will be, that one can pour good money after bad. Therefore, we want the many extra resources that we are making available to be spent properly.

My hon. Friend referred to the homeless. As he will know, we are putting £200 million into a programme to help with rough sleeping. Given the constituency that he represents, I am sure that the extra pressure that asylum seekers put on housing is on his mind. He will know that we are taking steps to move asylum seekers to those parts of the country where there is no shortage of accommodation. Sunderland, the area that I represent, is for the first time accommodating asylum seekers in some of our surplus houses.

My hon. Friend referred to the Association of London Government document. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has already met representatives of the association to discuss its initiative and he is due to meet them again next month.

Let me make it clear from the outset that the Government are acutely aware of the difficulties that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North has described. We are determined to do everything that we can to meet the challenge. Our aim is to ensure that everyone has a decent roof over his head and lives in sustainable communities.

The present situation in inner London is the result of several complex factors that cannot be resolved overnight. In the same way, we believe that the solution lies not in one or two high-profile central Government initiatives. A more holistic approach is called for that involves a number of linked activities in a partnership of the private, public and voluntary sectors.

The Government have already taken significant steps to improve the quality and increase the supply of affordable housing in the capital. We are involved in a massive investment programme to raise the quality and quantity of social housing in London. Over the lifetime of this Parliament, an additional £5 billion of capital receipts will have been made available nationally to build new homes and to rehabilitate old ones. About a third of that money will go to London, reflecting the high level of need that we know exists in the capital.

As part of that support, we recently announced a £613 million package of capital resources for investment by London boroughs in the current financial year. That represents a 54 per cent. increase over the previous year and accords with spending plans arising from the comprehensive spending review. Of this, more than £400 million will go to inner London authorities. Although some authorities will want to use the money for repairs to their own stock, others will want to prioritise new supply initiatives to ease the pressures on homelessness and families in temporary accommodation.

As I said, we are keen to ensure that the extra resources are spent wisely. For that reason, the housing investment programme allocations are made not on the basis of need alone, but on the quality of authorities' housing strategies and their performance in delivering housing services. That has proved a great incentive for the London boroughs to make real efforts to improve the services that they provide to their tenants and residents. I was pleased to see that, for example, my hon. Friend's local authority, Islington, made significant progress last year and that is to some extent reflected in its award of £28.5 million for the current financial year—an increase of more than 57 per cent. on what it received previously.

Most housing authorities in London are gradually improving their standards of performance, but there are still areas where some could do better. Indeed, some local authorities—I could name them but I will not—have only recently worked out which houses they own and which they do not. We are determined that local authorities should deliver high quality, efficient services that are responsive to the needs and aspirations of local people. That is why we are introducing the best value framework that I mentioned earlier. It will start on 1 April. Housing, as one of the key local authority services, is of prime importance. The new housing inspectorate, which is part of the Audit Commission, will not only act as an independent scrutineer of local authority housing services, but will assist and support authorities to build long-term strategies and tackle service failure where it occurs.

The proposed single pot for housing, also due to be implemented next year, will give London boroughs greater flexibility on deciding their own spending priorities. It will be up to each borough to decide on the balance between investing in its own stock and in new supply. I am confident that the boroughs will take full advantage of the opportunity.

The comprehensive spending review confirmed the continuation of the Housing Corporation's development programme. We have reversed the decline in funding and it will now increase in line with inflation. In the next financial year, we shall invest £276 million in London.

London's supply of land is limited, leading to an imbalance between supply and demand, so one of our main themes is to make more efficient use of existing urban land. The publication of the report of the urban task force has given greater impetus to making urban areas in inner London and elsewhere more attractive places to live. Over time, that will help to relieve the pressures on the capital's housing stock.

We must not underestimate the contribution that the planning system makes to the supply of affordable homes in London. That is why the Government give strong encouragement to local authorities to use existing planning powers to insist that developers provide affordable housing in new developments. London boroughs reported that 2,650 homes were secured through planning policy in 1998–99 and many more are in the pipeline. Taken together with more than 15 million of developer contributions in lieu of on-site provision, the planning system makes a real contribution to increasing the supply of affordable housing. My colleagues and I are keen to encourage good practice and I am confident that the planning system could be used to better effect to deliver even more affordable homes.

As I made clear at the outset, I did not have sufficient time to respond to all the points in my hon. Friend's speech. I shall study it and, if there are points that I have not answered, I shall write to him. I thank him for raising this important issue.