Housing (Wakefield)

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 12:30 pm on 20th December 1990.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Geoffrey Lofthouse Mr Geoffrey Lofthouse , Pontefract and Castleford 12:30 pm, 20th December 1990

I am grateful for an opportunity to raise the problems of the housing crisis in Wakefield. No doubt local authorities in other parts of the country face similar crises. I shall attempt to be as factual and constructive as I can and to put the points of which I have been advised as I understand them.

Wakefield metropolitan district council's housing committee recently approved a five-year strategic local housing plan, which has the stated intention of providing an effective, efficient and caring service to people living in both public and private sector accommodation—paying particular attention to those having special needs and to maintaining a commitment to equal opportunity.

Wakefield will be confronted by a major problem in the immediate future, in the form of insufficient resources with which to provide a housing service that will adequately meet demand. Even Wakefield—a local authority which efficiently provides services, as is demonstrated by its performance indicators being far better than average; its voids are only 1·1 per cent. of stock, and its arrears are only 2·5 per cent. of debit—needs adequate resources if it is to be effective.

Wakefield's public and private housing stock will continue to deteriorate unless the controls that prevent its metropolitan district council from raising the finance to fund necessary investment are relaxed. For many years, Wakefield managed without subsidy or resorting to general rate fund contributions. The full costs of the public sector housing service have been met by the rent income from the authority's tenants.

The last 10 years have seen a decline in the number of new-build dwellings and since 1988 no new schemes have been incorporated in Wakefield's capital programme. As many as 1,000 dwellings have been sold at a discount under the right-to-buy arrangements, and the total stock now available for letting is 20 per cent. less than 10 years ago. That has resulted in a waiting list numbering 12,300. Of those applicants, 77 per cent. require rehousing, not merely transfers, and 34 per cent. require accommodation for the elderly.

Ten years ago, young couples living in lodgings and on the waiting list for council accommodation could have expected an offer within two months. Currently, young couples starting out in life, single parents and families living in lodgings, face a wait of 12 to 18 months. There is a definite need for more single-person accommodation. As new-build schemes are totally unaffordable, family houses are having to be converted in an attempt to ease the problem, but that initiative only scratches the surface.

Will this country for ever have to live with a reputation for having young people who must live in cardboard boxes or in temporary hostel accommodation? A problem that was once confined to the capital, is now spreading throughout the country. Wakefield is attempting to follow the guidelines to work with other bodies and associations. However, can we expect housing associations to build 1,000 houses per year for rent at an affordable price?

Wakefield is at the centre of a mining and industrial area which has experienced unprecedented reductions in the work force in recent years. With more than 60 per cent. of tenants in receipt of housing benefit, many families and young people dare not take the risk of a long-term mortgage liability, even if they could afford the repayments at present.

Wakefield gives an annual revenue cash support to the housing association which took over ex-British Coal properties, which were being auctioned off over the heads of the existing tenants. These properties have been neglected for so many years by British Coal that they now need a programme of structural and environmental improvements, which will have to be undertaken from the ever-reducing housing investment programme allocation.

The new capital controls and the use of capital receipts have meant more restrictions on the resources available, resulting in an investment in 1990–91 which is only half that of 1989–90. The amount of capital investment for the public sector is a mere £150 per dwelling, which, as hon. Members will appreciate, does not go far these days.

Persistent lack of definite housing investment programme allocations and changes in the use of prescribed capital receipts has meant considering alternative ways to maintain reasonable housing conditions by improving the housing stock. Such cuts have certainly affected the council's ability to carry out full-scale housing improvements. Although properties are maintained to a reasonable standard, many thousands of post-war properties built in the 1950s and 1960s lack modern up-to-date fixtures and fittings. The council has had to reduce the standard of improvements to two basic elements: the provision of central heating and window replacements with draught-sealing qualities.

This year the Government withdrew subsidy under the grants system for aids and adaptations for disabled tenants in the public sector. Last year, of the 4,580 referrals for adaptation work, 1,067—23 per cent.—were for public sector tenants. With ever-increasing demand for this service, such expenditure now takes one sixth of the admissible basic HIP allocation.

The council has a statutory acquisition obligation. The statutory acquisition of designated defective pre-cast, reinforced dwellings continues seriously to affect the council's resources. In the Wakefield area, 172 pre-cast reinforced properties have been sold by British Coal and to date 97 of these properties have been purchased by the council, plus 182 which were previously in council ownership. Nearly one sixth of the council's basic HIP allocation is spent on acquisition of PRC dwellings.

Although Estate Action funding gives local authorities the chance to bid for extra resources, we must recognise that 50 per cent. of the capital cost still has to be found by the council from within its own resources. That leads to high capital investment in one small sector of the housing stock, to the detriment of other properties which are deteriorating through lack of investment. While it may resolve the problems on one estate, others are queuing up behind. The whole question of funding Estate Action projects requires review, so that 100 per cent. of the cost is supported by supplementary credit approvals.

Like all other authorities, we also have the problem of care in the community, as those initiatives have to be pursued, despite the deferral of the Government's proposals. Wakefield has within its boundaries two major regional resources—a hospital for the mentally ill and one for the mentally handicapped—which are discharging long-term patients into the community. The local council, the local health authority and housing associations are for ever attempting to find the resources to cater for the need to provide accommodation and the supervision that is necessary for such clients.

The new financial regime that controls subsidy paid to the housing revenue account will ensure that rent increases are in line with the Government's guidelines and more, owing to the inadequate inflation provision of a mere 5·5 per cent. for management and maintenance. Such rent increases will be necessary without any improvement in services. In 1991–92, the tenants of Wakefield, who are not receiving housing benefit, will probably be contributing to the rebate for their neighbours who are.

The lack of housing investment does not only affect the public sector. Following an expensive appraisal of the district's older housing stock, the council embarked, in 1979, on a 10-year improvement programme, with 82 general improvement areas proposed. Some 11 years later, with the strategy only half complete, owing to massive cuts in local authority housing finance, the council has been forced to re-evaluate the condition of the older housing stock to take account of the substantial changes contained in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

The council has also made a significant commitment to continue its area improvement programme, and has recently completed its first neighbourhood renewal assessment, as required by circular 6/90, before considering the declaration of renewal areas. The survey relates to 3,000 pre-1919 properties; it studied not only housing conditions but the socio-economic status of the local households. It revealed that 2,672 properties—80 per cent. of the total—needed extensive repairs, while 1,925 —64 per cent.—were unfit for habitation. More than 30 per cent. of households in the area were in receipt of means-tested benefits; 56 per cent. of households had a net weekly income of below £150. Over 80 per cent. received less than the national average, while 15 per cent. contained people of pensionable age; 76 per cent. had no savings, or at best insignificant amounts.

It appears from the survey's detailed analysis that the council is required to invest some £50 million over the next 10 years if it is to provide decent homes for the local community into the 21st century. The staggering repair bill for that area alone must be seen in the context of other demands on the housing capital allocations.

I am well aware that the Minister recently visited Castleford, and, in particular, the Smawthorne review area, which is involved in the improvement programme. I understand that he saw the completion of the first neighbourhood renewal assessment at Smawthorne. The council is now embarking on a major reassessment of its area renewal programme. It is estimated that 15,000 homes in the district need substantial repairs, that 2,500 properties lack basic amenities and that 4,300 are statutorily unfit—although that may well be an underestimate now.

Given the amount of unfitness revealed by the survey, it is estimated that a staggering £250 million—at least—will need to be invested to preserve the fabric of Wakefield's old housing stock. Like many other authorities, Wakefield faces the problem of houses in multiple occupation—HMOs. During 1989, the council carried out a detailed HMO stock condition survey, which revealed that many people were living in the most squalid conditions imaginable. Eighty-four per cent. of properties lack adequate means of escape in case of fire; 32 per cent. were considered unfit for habitation; 80 per cent. lack adequate sanitary and washing facilities; 84 per cent. were not in a satisfactory state of repair; 66 per cent. of tenants experienced difficulties in persuading landlords to carry out repairs, and 40 per cent. of properties failed to comply with the HMO management regulations.

Such property houses many elderly, single and vulnerable members of society. Their number is growing at an alarming rate, due to the inadequacy of alternative accommodation provided for vulnerable groups by socially responsible landlords.

In response to the growing housing crisis, the council has developed a housing aid service. It provides information, advice and advocacy on a wide range of housing matters. Use of the housing aid centre has risen consistently and dramatically since it opened. The combined effects of the Housing Act 1988, the Social Security Act 1986, the recent benefit changes, the introduction of the poll tax and the Government's high interest rate policy continue to have a serious impact on the local community, as reflected in the use of the centre.

Between April 1989 and March 1990, the housing aid service dealt with the following problems: 1,535 benefit inquiries, 376 cases of debt counselling, 322 cases of harassment and illegal eviction, 917 people looking for accommodation, 243 cases of relationship breakdowns, 728 mortgage problem cases and 874 cases relating to security of tenure. Many of those cases are the direct result of the Government's policy to deregulate rents and high interest rates.

The housing aid centre also dealt with 598 cases of homelessness and 917 cases of people looking for accommodation. The vast majority of them come from non-priority groups. They are mainly single people who are destined to end up sleeping rough or living in squalid conditions in multi-occupied properties. I never thought that I would live to see the day when people in my constituency had to face such conditions. When I left the Wakefield metropolitan district council in 1978, having been its housing chairman, people could expect to get accommodation within two months of making an application. During the last 10 years, the outlook has deteriorated to the extent that I have described.

The council has reacted positively to the new grants system. More than 1,000 inquiries were received during the first six months. Given the resources available for house renovation grants, the problem has become insoluble. Under the new income assessment procedure, 52 per cent. of all households assessed had a nil contribution to make. That highlights the low incomes and the poverty faced by many people in the district. In total, 80 per cent. make contributions of less than £2,000. With average repair costs approaching only £10,000, it makes economic sense to preserve communities by providing warm, dry, well-repaired and affordable homes. However, a considerable burden has been placed on the council by its overall housing allocation.

The means test for grants poses its own problems in many cases. Many people, particularly the elderly, resent the intrusive questions associated with the tests and refuse to give the information required. In addition, the means test takes no account of existing housing costs. Many households, in particular young, first-time buyers, are advised that their contribution will be substantially above what they can afford. The Government must change their policy now and target sufficient resources not only on people but on property when the council considers that comprehensive rehabilitation of its older housing stock is necessary.

I gave the Minister notice of the contents of my speech, so he will be familiar with it. I shall therefore omit some of the points that I intended to make, if the Minister will reply in writing to them.

The 1991–92 HIP allocation for Wakefield of only £11·14 million is inadequate to meet the Department's indicative spending amounts of £6·4 million for public sector borrowing, £500,000 for housing association work and £6·8 million for grant-eligible works. That makes a total of £13·7 million, yet the 25 per cent. use of capital receipts is reducing because tenants fear high mortgage rates. Capital income is reducing because few houses are being sold.

I recognise that no Government have a bottomless pit of money, but the shocking deterioration in our housing stock in the past 10 years cannot be met and put right overnight. Will the Government examine the feasibility of allowing local authorities the freedom to raise finance on the open market, similar to housing associations? I accept that the Government will never provide adequate resources to meet demand, but will they merely relax the controls to allow local authorities to use their own initiatives and resources to resolve the problem?

If not, will the Minister say how Wakefield can provide a service that meets the needs and demands of 40,000 tenants, 8,000 potential tenants and owners and private-sector tenants who have a right to decent accommodation?

Only yesterday, it was announced that the crime rate in West Yorkshire has increased by 20 per cent. Although I do not condone that or place all the blame at the door of the housing problem, when people get desperate and have nowhere to put their head down they are attracted to petty crime. I hope that the Minister will appreciate that point.