Housing (Old Properties)

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 8 August 1966.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Robert Mellish Mr Robert Mellish , Bermondsey 12:00, 8 August 1966

My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) is one of the hon. Members who is most highly qualified to raise this subject. I know of no Member who has a greater knowledge of housing problems, particularly in London. He has had many years' experience in local government, and as a leader of a local authority, and it is right that this morning he should initiate a debate on a situation which many of us recognise could and should be improved, but which is being ignored. I am grateful to him for raising the matter.

It is a fact that renewal, whether by redevelopment or by rehabilitation and improvement, of the outworn parts of our towns and cities will undoubtedly be the big housing problem in the next 20 years, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would be the first to agree that I need no convincing about the important part which housing associations can play in this task.

Let me, first, put the problem in its context. As a Government, we saw our first task as being a rapid acceleration of the new house building programme. Only by this means can we overcome the backlog of shortages and provide for population growth. Only by this means can we get rid of the present slums that we know are so bad that there is nothing for it but to knock them down. Despite the economic difficulties which the country is now facing, we shall see an acceleration of this task. We shall do our best to ensure that those who are responsible for the removal of slums—and that can only be the public authorities—are encouraged to improve their programmes, and get rid of their slums quicker.

Having said that, let me remind my hon. Friend and the House that, early in 1965, we set in hand a whole series of studies designed to tell us more about the ways of dealing with houses that are obsolete but not slums by current standards. A sub-committee of our Central Housing Advisory Committee was given the task of reviewing the present standards of housing fitness. Its report, which has just been received, will be published in the autumn. I know that my hon. Friend will have a particular interest in it.

My Department's Urban Planning Directorate has made a detailed examination of one area of obsolescent homes in Rochdale to find out how best to decide between redevelopment and rehabilitation, and how improvement to the houses can be linked with improvements to the environment. I know that my hon. Friend will be the first to concede that that is also an important aspect of house improvement. We propose to publish that report very shortly.

My right hon. Friend is reviewing the whole of the improvement grant system to see how it can be made much more effective. To this end, we have commissioned a market research firm to make a survey. Another problem is how to ensure better and continuing maintenance of old houses. These various considerations must be brought together to mount a concerted attack on our obsolescent housing stock, and we see that as our next major task in the housing field.

However important the part which housing associations can play, they cannot be considered in isolation. My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that local authorities have an enormous part to play here, and so have owner-occupiers and private landlords. Many ideas and suggestions have been put forward for stimulating activity, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I give him the assurance that this debate will be closely read not only by my right hon. Friend, but by those responsible in the Department for advising on policy. The debate will not be just a matter of going through the motions.

I am aware that in accelerating new building, with higher subsidies to local authorities and housing associations and assistance to the lower paid owner-occupiers, we may have tilted the balance in favour of redevelopment and away from rehabilitation and improvement. That is something which we must examine. A coherent and comprehensive policy for the older houses is called for, and I give my hon. Friend an assurance that housing associations will share in the benefits of that policy and will have a continuing rôle to play. Indeed, there is a worth-while job to be done here for which determined and efficient housing associations are particularly well suited.

In the areas of acute housing pressure, local authorities often feel that their strained resources can be most usefully deployed in large-scale operations whereas the improvement and conversion of old properties means inevitably dealing with individual houses or at best with small groups of two or three at a time, and it is a fact that some local authorities, particularly in London, are too busy with their immediate task of trying to clear the slums and the rest to find time to deal with some of the older property not immediately due for redevelopment. The housing associations can take on the sort of work of dealing with one, two or three houses. We hope that local authorities will welcome the contribution that they can make in shouldering some of the burden.

This is not a new idea. Many housing associations are already doing this sort of work, with first-class results. On the other hand, it is as well to bear in mind that there are others which have very little to show for a great deal of effort. It might be thought a little invidious to mention names, but I do not think that anyone can complain if I make a reference to the very fine work which has been done, for example, by the Kensington Housing Trust, the Nottinghill Housing Trust and the Mulberry Housing Trust, with which the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) has been associated. There are, of course, many others. Moreover, we can expect other housing associations and trusts to be formed to do this sort of work and we welcome them.

The British Council of Churches Housing Trust is, I know, doing its best to form new housing associations centred on local churches. I understand that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) are taking a leading part in setting up a number of trusts in the London area which they have in mind to operate on the same lines as the Mulberry Trust.

I think that we ought not to discuss this issue without mentioning some of the snags which have been revealed by the experience of the past few years. Housing is a serious business. It demands hard work, determination, professional skill and money. Good intentions are not enough by themselves. It was put to me recently that, for a housing trust engaged in this sort of work to be effective, it needs four ingredients: first, a first-class housing manager; secondly, a competent chairman with drive; thirdly, some funds to meet overhead expenses for the initial period until rental income covers management costs, as well as some working capital; fourthly, financial support and the full co-operation of the local authorities. I entirely endorse this. A good housing manager is essential if an association is to do this work on any substantial scale and I am sure that this is one of the first requirements.

Perhaps I can say something about the question of co-operation by local authorities. My hon. Friend said, and I admit this, that some local authorities are not prepared to co-operate with housing associations. Or that, if they are, the amount of financial support they are prepared to give is not sufficient to enable schemes to be carried through to a successful conclusion. Or that there are long delays in dealing with applications which add greatly to the difficulties of the associations which, after all, are working where quick decisions are necessary.

I have no doubt that some of these criticisms are true and, to the extent that they are, I hope that local authorities will recognise the contribution that housing associations can make and will be prepared to be more forthcoming. But it is certainly not true in all cases. Some local authorities I know are only too anxious to give all the help they can to associations that come to them with sound, viable schemes, and in evidence of this I would point out that the amount of money which local authorities have advanced to housing associations has increased fourfold in the last four years.

There is another side to this question. Local authorities tell me that they have to waste a great deal of time "vetting" schemes which have not the slightest prospect of getting off the ground, or that they are criticised because they will not make advances for schemes that simply are not viable. They say that their officers have to spend so much time giving help and advice to associations who simply do not understand what they are doing that it would be more economical if the authorities did the job themselves.

I have no doubt that there is a great deal of truth in this. Advances are made by the local authority to housing associations, using public money and the authorities have not only a right but a duty to make sure that the money is spent wisely. The local authorities must be the judges of whether a scheme is viable, and I do not intend to criticise any authority which declines to authorise money for a scheme which it does not believe will stand up to critical examination. Housing associations, if they want local authority support, have to be able to show that their proposals deserve it. They must select the right areas for their operations. It is no use selecting property which is likely to be demolished by the local authority under a clearance scheme in five or 10 years, and asking for a 25-year loan to buy it. This is common, particularly in the London area.

The property must be structurally sound and suitable for improvementt and conversion. I would have thought that it should be property which can be expected to have a useful life of at least 30 years after improvement. The price must be right, because the price governs the rents and it is no use producing good dwellings at rents that ordinary people cannot afford. Some associations complain that there is a gap between the price which they have to pay for property and the amount which the local authority will advance. But I know of one trust which tells me that it is not interested in property which it cannot acquire at the local authority's valuation. Nevertheless, it says that it has not the slightest difficulty in buying all that it can handle.

It is important that a housing association interested in this sort of work should establish a working relationship with a local authority. My view is that it is probably better for an association to confine its operations to one area, and it would be wise to accept any advice that the local authority can give on where and how it can do the most useful work.

I hope that I have said enough to show that we as a Government are anxious that the housing association movement shall be given every encouragement to play its part in securing an improvement in the decaying areas of our big cities. I have mentioned some of the difficulties that have arisen in the past, and I hope that nothing that I have said will be taken as a discouragement of work of this nature. It is important that local authorities should give their support to it, and it is equally important that the housing associations should set about the task in a way which will justify the support which they need.

In opening his speech my hon. Friend reminded us of the vast numbers of properties which were in a decaying condition, without baths and without adequate facilities. There can be no doubt that although their contribution is small the part of the housing associations in this work is extremely important. I can give an assurance to my hon. Friend and to the House, that my Minister and my Department will do all that they possibly can to encourage local authorities to lend money to those associations which justify that aid, to encourage them to go forward and to make an improved contribution to this great problem, with which we are all concerned.