| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Tim Smith (Beaconsfield) : Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents take this major lapse at the Iver water treatment works, based in my constituency, very seriously? Is he aware that I only heard about it from the church pulpit at 10 o'clock yesterday morning? It is unacceptable that more than 12 hours should have elapsed before my constituents were notified. There should be proper procedures to ensure that the customers affected are immediately notified. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the inquiry looks into that and sets in place procedures to make certain that such immediate notification is given in future?
Column 791
Mr. Trippier : I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that, given my statement and subsequent answers, I share his anxiety about this matter and I take it seriously.We must look at what can be done to improve communications and not expect such information to be disseminated in the form of parish notices from the pulpit.
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : What are the requirements by the controlling body governing the numbers of people on duty and the chlorination mechanism? Is the latter automatic or visual, continuous or periodic? Secondly, did the system depend on service reservoirs ; was it direct or indirect, or a mixture of the two? Thirdly, is the company wholly owned by shareholders in the United Kingdom, or is it a subsidiary of a large water undertaking outside the United Kingdom?
Mr. Trippier : The answer to the last question is that a French company has a large holding, not that I know what difference that can make. This is not a privatisation issue--the company has been privatised for a considerable time.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's earlier point, and I hope that the investigation will establish whether enough people were available to deal with the problem. I am entirely satisfied that, once the communication was made to my Department and to the drinking water inspectorate, there were enough people in place to notify Ministers and others so that the necessary regulatory action could be taken--which, of course, it was.
Mr. Richard Page (Hertfordshire, South-West) : I very much welcome the decision to set up the inquiry, which is the right way to ascertain what happened. Will it examine what is possibly the most serious aspect of the case? The company had agreed a rectification policy with authorities such as the DWI. Then, just before midnight, it tried to contact the local media and rang local radio stations. Those that replied--not all of them did--were not interested. When the company got hold of the television studios, they said that the matter was not of national interest. It was certainly of interest to my constituents. Fortunately, the problem was not serious in this case, but I hope that the inquiry will see whether there is some immediate way of using broadcasting stations, which must recognise that they have a social duty to the public and my constituents.
Mr. Trippier : I am bound to agree with my hon. Friend's last point. I too have heard evidence to the effect that a number of broadcasting stations said that they were not interested because this was not of national interest. I question whether that is a responsible attitude to take.
Whether or not the drinking water inspectorate deals with this problem in its investigation is irrelevant, because I assure my hon. Friend that I shall deal with it.
Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South) : Will the Minister make clear his concern about the obvious ineptitude and tardiness of the water company's response in this matter? We do not need an inquiry to reveal that. My constituents found that they had to inform each other of the danger by word of mouth--indeed, my own household did so. They encountered mind-boggling complacency on the part of the water authority. It is time that the Minister expressed his concern in the clearest and most strident terms, so that
Column 792
those who might be tempted to go down this path in future will be deterred. The inquiry must not become a whitewashing exercise.Mr. Trippier : Although it is repeating what I said earlier, I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman my assurance that I would not have made the statement or answered questions on it unless I was concerned about this matter. We would not have called for an investigation by the drinking water inspectorate in the way that it will be carried out unless the whole of the Department of the Environment and the drinking water inspectorate were concerned about it. The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer and will appreciate that I cannot say that the company has been dilatory or complacent in the way that he suggests, or make any such comment, until the investigation has been completed.
Mr. Michael Shersby (Uxbridge) : Is my hon. Friend aware that this incident has caused great concern to my constituents in Uxbridge and Hillingdon? Will he ensure that the inquiry will look into the means by which these automated systems operate and whether there is a suitable trigger mechanism to alert the company, its management and the emergency services in the event of a failure of this kind? Will he assure the House not only that Three Valleys will learn the lessons but that they will be applied to every water company in the country, because the possibility of much more serious faults than the one that occurred in this instance is very alarming?
Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the police, who from the early hours of Sunday morning, did an absolutely first-class job in notifying consumers by the use of loud hailers and leaflets so that the vast majority of people in the area were aware of the incident? They knew by the time they got up in the morning that they had to boil their water. Will he please look at the kind of notification that water companies are obliged to send to consumers to ensure that it is written clearly, so that everybody can easily understand it?
Mr. Trippier : I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks about notification and undertake to look at that. I join him in congratulating the police on the wonderful role that they played in responsibly informing people in the area to the best of their ability. My hon. Friend asked about the lessons to be learned and about an adequate trigger point. I assure him that we shall look at that in particular with a view to replicating throughout the country anything that needs to be done as a result of the lessons learned from this experience.
Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East) : I thank the Minister for his detailed statements, which will go some way to reassuring people. None the less, we can all thank the Almighty that a major disaster has been averted : one can only imagine what might have happened. I join him in paying tribute to the police for their rapid response, and I pay particular tribute to the police in Harrow for the way in which they acted and patrolled the streets.
Local health authorities also acted promptly but, as hon. Members have said, we need a cogent and detailed explanation about the company's delay in notifying the public and the media. Will the Minister consider the need for a further statement, bearing in mind that the House is soon going into recess, to deal with that matter? On the assumption that the Iver works, which has been
Column 793
mentioned, deals primarily or exclusively with Thames river water, may we have a proper explanation to reassure the public about the way in which that water is treated and an assurance that the contamination coefficients will be properly sorted out by the regulatory authorities and the company?Mr. Trippier : I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that we shall have to return to this matter. I entirely accept that there must be a cogent explanation about precisely what happened in terms of the delay and what went wrong in the plant. My hon. Friend will understand that some of that information might have to be used as evidence if a prosecution were taken out by the Department of the Environment. Therefore, one might have to handle that carefully. I assure my hon. Friend that I intend the report to be made public at the appropriate time.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West) : I thank my hon. Friend for his statement and for the announcement of the inquiry by the drinking water inspectorate. It is important for the inspectorate to look at what happened and why it happened, at mechanisms that exist to stop it happening again and, in particular, at the matter that has already been raised with my hon. Friend, about informing people about what went on. From what my hon. Friend has said, I am even more perplexed than I was yesterday, and my constituents will also be perplexed. Every time I listen to a radio or television bulletin, I hear different times being mentioned and different versions of what happened and when attempts were made to inform the public. Apparently, the company was able to inform the drinking water inspectorate at 11 o'clock but started to try to tell people who were likely to drink the water at 12 o'clock. That is unacceptable. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the inquiry will examine that specific aspect? Lastly, but most importantly, may I be assured that the report of the inquiry will be made entirely public so that people can assess for themselves what has been done in their name?
Mr. Trippier : My hon. Friend may not have heard my assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) about the information that has come to light. I repeat that assurance--that it is absolutely essential that the information arising from the investigation should be made public. There is an interim stage at which we shall have to decide whether a prosecution may be necessary or appropriate.
I understand my hon. Friend's concern about information supplied to customers/consumers in this matter, and I assure him that the investigation will be especially directed at that. The timings in my statement are
Column 794
definitive because we have gleaned them from several sources and they have been confirmed and reconfirmed, in contrast to the speculative timings that my hon. Friend may have heard elsewhere.Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip, Northwood) : May I add my thanks to my hon. Friend for reassuring the House? The investigation should look into the problem of notifying people of such emergencies at weekends, because that was the real cause of the difficulty. Not all members of the public are as assiduous as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) in listening to the radio, nor are they all as indulgent as I was in going to buy my little son an ice cream, when I found in the shop a leaflet notifying me and other residents of my constituency of the dangers. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the police and other services have the necessary manpower to inform the public of such emergencies at weekends?
Mr. Trippier : My hon. Friend makes a good point. Much of the problem associated with this matter arose from the fact that the incident occurred at a weekend. I hope that the investigation will specifically address the matter of the problems that can arise at weekends.
Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud) : My hon. Friend has rightly observed that this is a regrettable incident. Does he agree that one of the main advantages of privatisation of the industry is the complete separation of the provider of services from the regulator of standards, the so-called poacher-gamekeeper relationship? That will stand us in good stead in this and perhaps in any similar matters in future.
Mr. Trippier : I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I was somewhat surprised by the intervention of the hon. Member for Dewsbury, who did not pay a compliment where I thought that one was appropriate. The regulatory system that we have set up and of which I am enormously proud brought about the separation of the poacher and gamekeeper roles. That is essential. The House and the country can draw comfort from the fact that the investigation being carried out by the independent regulatory body set up by a Conservative Government will be open, frank and of high quality. We certainly did not have such a body when the last Labour Government were in office.
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &c.), That the draft Magistrates' Courts (Remands in Custody) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Wood.]
Question put and agreed to.
Column 795
Points of Order
5.59 pm
Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : Oh, my goodness. Does the hon. Gentleman want to be called in this debate?
Mr. Madden : I have not applied to speak in the debate, Mr. Speaker. If you remember, I said several hours ago, at the end of the private notice question on BCCI, that I wished to raise a point of order. A number of my constituents have lost their life savings as a result of the collapse of this bank, and others face redundancy because companies have collapsed as a result of the closure of the bank. They will resent the Prime Minister's charge that those who are seeking the truth about the reasons for the collapse of the bank are muck-raking.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that during the exchanges on the private notice question, the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) referred to a senior Labour councillor in Bradford as a salesman for BCCI. I have attempted to contact the hon. Member for Dorset, South by letter and telephone since he made those remarks. It will be known to many in Bradford that he was clearly referring to Councillor Mohd Ajeeb, a former lord mayor of Bradford, who was an adviser to the bank, but severed his links with it in 1989.
Mr. Speaker : Order. That may well be, but what is the point of order for me? I cannot possibly know things like that, especially if names are not mentioned.
Mr. Madden : The point for you, Mr. Speaker, is that it was clearly an inaccurate smear and a slur, in the best traditions of muck-raking. I hope that you will require the hon. Member for South Dorset to withdraw those rather serious allegations.
Mr. Speaker : I cannot be held responsible, as I have said several times, for what is said. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) may have been inaccurate--I have no knowledge of that--but he was certainly not out of order.
Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to you for causing you offence during the supplementary questions to the private notice question. It was a heated moment, when the Opposition were extraordinarily irritated by the Prime Minister's accusation of muck-raking. I draw your attention to the fact that, in the Parliament in which Lord Callaghan was Prime Minister, when he made a remark that was offensive to the then Leader of the Opposition--the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)--the Opposition withdrew their facilities and cross-party co-operation. The Leader of the House is here, and in front of him I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not in the service of Parliament that personal insults should be traded between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. No doubt those who have ears can hear.
Mr. Speaker : That may well be so, but many rough things are said in this Chamber, particularly in July and particularly as we approach the end of a Parliament. These things are often forgotten when we go into recess.
Column 796
Adjournment (Summer)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 25th July, do adjourn until Monday 14th October.-- [Mr. Wood.]
Several Hon. Members rose--
Mr. Speaker : Order. A great many right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. I am not able to impose any limit on speeches, but if speeches could be limited to not more than 10 minutes, and preferably a little less, then every hon. Member who wishes to be called will be able to speak and, I hope, will go away contented for the recess.
6.4 pm
Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking) : I shall do my best, Mr. Speaker, to respond to your strict injunction, and to be brief. Had you not been so stern, I might have suggested that one reason why the Adjournment should be diminished by one day, with the House rising on Friday rather than Thursday, is that we badly need an opportunity to debate the excellent record of the Government and particularly that of the Prime Minister. I do not expect that the bad losers on the Opposition Benches would agree with that, but then they wouldn't, would they? As I shall not carry the Opposition with me on that subject, I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to turn his attention to a different and rather less important matter, which nevertheless concerns me and I hope him, too. I am sure that my right hon. Friend reads The Times and that he will have had a chance to read the leading letter in it today, which calls attention to a matter that I have raised on previous occasions.
That is the strange reluctance of Departments and Ministers to carry through what many of us understand to be their obligation, under the Salmon Act 1986, to prepare and produce a report on the north-east drift-net fishery. The letter, which is signed by a distinguished collection of heads of angling bodies in England and Scotland, focuses on the continuing absence of statements on that subject. There was recently a brief series of exchanges in the House of Lords on the subject, and I asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, at business questions on 11 July, whether he expected to be in a position to clear up some of the obscurity that surrounds the matter.
As the letter in The Times shows, this is an important matter. The letter begins by stressing that there is an obligation, and by regretting the absence of a positive response by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in particular. In the absence of a Government decision on the matter, England and Wales are virtually isolated in continuing to allow drift-net fishing for Atlantic salmon with monofilament nets. Scotland banned their use as early as 1962 and only Greenland and the Republic of Ireland permit this indiscriminate, wasteful and damaging practice, which entraps and kills sea birds and mammals as well as the creatures at which it is presumably aimed, the fish.
The provisional figures show that in 1990, the north-east drift-net fishery was the only salmon fishery in the United Kingdom to increase its catch, taking more than 51,000 fish and accounting for 60 per cent. of the salmon caught in the whole of England and Wales. As the letter says :
Column 797
"It is widely acknowledged that over 80 per cent. of the salmon taken by this fishery would otherwise have returned to their native Scottish rivers. There has been a serious decline in the Scottish catch, which was only 145,000 fish in 1990, compared with 278,000 in 1989, itself not a good year."Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries) : I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this issue. He might like to know that we debated it in some depth on Thursday 11 July in the Scottish Grand Committee. While the decision has to be made by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Scottish rivers are bearing the main brunt of the drift-net fishing. I agree that we should have an early answer from the Government on this point.
Mr. Onslow : I am glad to have my hon. Friend's valuable support. I know what a close interest he takes in this matter in Scotland. I am sure that he will agree that one of the ironies of the situation is that, whereas those who support the north-east drift-net fishery claim that it has a traditional status, as long ago as the 1950s, which is before it began to reach today's serious proportions, it was catching only 2,000 fish a year. The traditional catch from Scottish rivers has been much more than that for many years.
As the letter says :
There is widespread international concern over the dramatic decline of salmon catches in the North Atlantic, with a drop of over 60 per cent. in the last 20 years. Conservation measures are now urgently required to reduce all forms of indiscriminate interceptory fishing and to restrict the catching salmon to their native rivers, where the level of fishing by traditional net or rod and line can be locally managed.'
Incidentally, the value of the salmon there is many times what it is in the sea.
It is a matter of great regret that at the time when Mr. Orri Vigfusson in Iceland has obtained the agreement of the Faroese fishermen to take a compensation payment in return for not fishing their deep sea salmon quotas, there is an apparent decision vacuum at the ministerial level.
Although the financing of compensation payments might have to come from private sources--principally from owners, tenants and others fishing the rivers most affected by the measures--it will be difficult for anyone to raise money for the purpose as long as there is no serious sign of any attempt by the Government to cut down on interceptory fishing. The immediate danger is that a failure to raise the British share of the finance for the Faroese agreement could cause the whole initiative to collapse. There were signs of that at the recent eighth annual meeting of the North Atlantic salmon conservation organisations in Edinburgh.
The letter continues :
"We now publicly urge the government to come to a decision on the north- east drift-net fishery."
I support that plea. If my right hon. Friend cannot give us much more information today than he gave me on 11 July, I hope that he will at least try to explain the cause of the delay, Is it due to a departmental difference that cannot be resolved? If so, that is a pity ; if an arbitrator is needed, I am sure that there will be no shortage of volunteers. The reason may be more deep-seated, however. If the delay continues, the position will grow not better but worse. We shall find ourselves up against deadlines. The net limitation order must be renewed in 1992, unless the whole arrangement is to become a free-for-all again.
Column 798
Many of us are worried about the absence of the necessary drive to represent British interests at EC level. I I am sure that Mr. Heinrik Schmiegelow, a Danish EC official, does his best to represent our interests, but a greater impetus is needed closer to home. I hope that we shall see some sign of that soon.Let me echo the plea that others have already made for the announcment of a date by which a decision will be made--and an early date at that--so that we can see some prospect that this important matter, which should not be allowed to drag on, will be dealt with.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden) : I am sorry that I missed the first minute or so of my hon. Friend's speech.
I was a member of the Committee that was promised Government action. All too often, my right hon. Friend--and, subsequently, other Committee members --received no proper explanation in response to their requests for information. One reason for our not delaying the passage of the Bill was an assurance from a Minister that we would be given a report and that it would be published. Astonishingly, there has been no hint of a reply to our questions--and certainly there has been no report.
Mr. Onslow : I am glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend ; he has enabled me to shorten my peroration. I well remember what was said in Committee, and I believe that Committee members have been disappointed by the lack of progress. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to reassure us.
6.12 pm
Mr. Stan Crowther (Rotherham) : I am pleased to have this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to early-day motion 1035, which deals with disruption of the licensed trade and has the support of no fewer than 121 hon. Members on both sides of the House. I at once declare an interest, as parliamentary adviser to the National Licensed Victuallers Association.
Let me stress immediately that many of the actions being taken by the big brewery companies, which are causing a great deal of distress, were not made necessary by the Beer Orders of December 1989, which followed a report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of beer. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has rightly drawn attention to that more than once. It is true to say, however, that that legislation acted as a catalyst ; and, in that sense, those who signed the early-day motion believe that the Government have some responsibility to take remedial measures, although that may mean new legislation.
The fact is that the MMC, in its report, made a fundamental error, which was reflected in the Beer Orders. It did not appreciate a simple point, which I am sure that all hon. Members who are present will find easy to understand : people do not travel 50 or 100 miles to buy a pint of beer, even if it is a little cheaper there. To the customer, it does not really matter how many tied houses throughout the country are owned by a single brewery company. The degree of choice depends on the number of different breweries that supply beer in the area where the customer lives.
The legislation that was addressed to the national position, which required brewery companies to reduce the number of tied houses that they owned nationally, was irrelevant to competition in the retail market. But, because
Column 799
the large companies must now divest themselves of about 11,000 tied houses, they are taking steps to ensure that they make more money out of those that they are allowed to keep. They are doing that at the expense of tenants and customers : that is at the heart of the problem.Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West) : The hon. Gentleman has touched on a matter that I may mention later. Not only tenants and customers, but those living in the area surrounding a public house will strongly object to the change of user that will result from the rather shabby way in which the brewers have treated their tenants.
Mr. Crowther : I am sure that that point is valid. There is no doubt that literally thousands of pub tenants are now under notice to quit, and that is causing a good deal of distress. Many are being offered--in place of the traditional tenancy--a long lease at a rent that may be two, three or even four times as much as the present one, with full liability for repairs and renovations, but still tied to the brewery. If a tenant feels unable to accept the terms that are offered, his only option is to get out and to abandon a business which, in many instances, has been built up over many years, leaving his home at the same time. Almost uniquely, in this trade, business premises are virtually always the family home as well.
Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay) : As one who signed the early-day motion, I have followed the dispute with interest.
I am advised that notices to quit are merely a technicality under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. What advice would the hon. Gentleman give individual tenants who find themselves in difficulties and who are offered long leases that are apparently very uneconomic?
Mr. Crowther : This is precisely why I have raised the matter in the House. I hope that, in due course, the Leader of the House will convey all these points to the Secretary of State ; action is certainly needed.
I wish to be fair to the Secretary of State. He wrote to hon. Members very recently, setting out his position. I feel, however, that legislation will ultimately be needed. Until now, only one of the major companies has agreed to independent arbitration to assess a fair rent--Grand Metropolitan, which, perhaps ironically, is no longer a brewer, having transferred its breweries to Elders in return for an interest in the former Courage houses. At least it had agreed to independent arbitration. The problem for the tenant is that if--for reasons of age, for example--he does not feel able to accept a long lease, even at a rent fixed by an arbitrator, he will not be entitled to compensation and will be thrown out on the street without a penny. The other companies, however, have not even agreed to any form of arbitration. If, as they claim, the rents that they are demanding are fair, what have they to fear from independent arbitration? If a licensee accepts a tied lease, at an enormously increased rent, certain consequences must follow. First, he will have to push up his prices to pay the extra rent. The first to suffer will be the customer. However, the tenant will still be competing with managed houses belonging to the same brewery company and with the working men's clubs. Trade is bound to decrease. The loss of trade that will be suffered by the brewery company will be compensated for by the extra rent that it will get out of the pub, but the
Column 800
tenant will be squeezed between customers complaining about his prices and the brewery company charging an excessive rent. In those circumstances, many tenants will inevitably be squeezed out of business.In other cases, especially in the case of the Bass empire, hundreds of tenants are being abolished and the houses taken back for management. That does not reduce the number of tied houses. A managed house is even more tied. Everything in a managed house--from the wines and spirits to a box of matches or a packet of crisps--will be supplied by the brewery company. Although the number of tied houses will not be reduced, the most profitable ones can then be run by an employee of the company rather than by a tenant in charge of his own business.
Many a Bass tenant, including many in my constituency, have spent years and a lot of money on building up sound businesses. They now face the choice of applying to buy or lease a pub somewhere else, which Bass will be putting on the market, or going out of the trade completely and losing their homes, with very little compensation, or applying for the job of manager, in which case Bass will graciously send somebody to interview them to see whether they are good enough to be appointed as managers of the pubs that they have been running for 10 or 20 years or more. That is literally adding insult to injury.
Unless the position changes dramatically, many tenants who have given good service to the public for years will be out on the street, either with no compensation at all or with the inadequate compensation provided for in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. To his credit, when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry met, at his own request, representatives of the National Licensed Victuallers Association, he undertook to speak to the heads of the big brewery companies and explain to them his views on what he believes to be the stress and damage that their actions are causing. The Secretary of State has circulated a letter to all hon. Members setting out his position, very reasonably and moderately, and I thank him for it. The only problem is that I doubt whether the brewery companies will take any notice of it. Unless we obtain an undertaking that there will be legislation early in the new Session, I fear that nothing will save the tenants.
The stated intentions of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Government have been completely frustrated by the brewery companies. We were told that one of those intentions was to give customers a better deal, through more competition. Ministers often talk of "sharpening" competition. When the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report was published the four biggest brewery companies had 58 per cent. of the market, but today they have nearly 70 per cent. of the market. It is difficult to see how competition has been sharpened. Beer and lager prices have rocketed in the meantime, and I am afraid that they will continue to go up for a long time yet. The second of the stated intentions was to provide better security for tenants. Unfortunately, when the Government were dealing with what is now the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Act, they refused to bring forward the implementation date. They left that long gap during which brewers were able to move in and serve their notices to quit. The future of thousands of tenants, I am afraid, is very insecure. With the best will in the world, the Government got it wrong. I do not believe that anybody
Column 801
loses credit by admitting that they made a mistake. The Government should admit that they made a mistake and take swift action to repair the damage.6.24 pm
Sir Fergus Montgomery (Altrincham and Sale) : I should like briefly to raise two issues. The first is that the north of England feels that it is not getting its fair share of the Housing Corporation budget. On 3 July, a group of representatives from north-west housing associations came to visit the north-west group of Conservative Members of Parliament. They put their case very well indeed. We felt a great deal of sympathy for them. As chairman of the group, I promised that I would press their case. I thought that tonight's debate would be an ideal opportunity to do so. Little did I realise at the time that today there would be not just a private notice question but three statements before we reached this debate. Nobody disputes the value of housing associations. All of us agree that they perform a great service in providing affordable housing. Housing associations are funded by the Housing Corporation. I am told that its budget is due to grow by almost 100 per cent. during the period 1990 to 1994. During the same period, the number of dwellings provided will increase from about 19,000 a year to just under 40,000 a year.
That is very welcome news for those in housing need. However, the concern of the housing associations is that the three regions in the north of England--the north-east, the north-west and Merseyside--will get only a 7 per cent. share of the increased growth, with the other 93 per cent. going to the rest of the country. That flies in the face of urban policy, whereby resources are targeted on those areas in the greatest need. Whatever statistics one cares to examine--whether they be city challenge, the urban programme, the urban development corporations or estate action--the pattern is the same, with the north being awarded the major share. Therefore, these housing associations were at a loss to understand why their housing allocation over this period is so low.
This Government firmly believe in a policy of value for money, which I completely support. The greater the efficiency and the better the use that is made of resources, the more that can be done for those in need. Waste and inefficiency help no one. On the question of value for money, £1 million would provide 20 homes in the north, compared with 16 in the west and only 13 in London. Therefore, more homes could be provided for the same amount of money in the north. There is a desperate need for new housing in the north, because a larger proportion of pre-1919 housing stock is to be found there. Much of that stock is now in need of clearance or major repair. In passing, may I point out that in the immediate post-war years we made a great mistake by building more and more council estates on the edges of towns and more and more multi-storey blocks of flats. We could have made much better use of what I, for want of a better word, would call the Coronation street type of terraced houses. If we had spent money on modernising them and putting them into better shape, people would have been much happier. They would have remained close to their place of work and within the tightly knit communities to which they had belonged for so many years.
Column 802
Mr. Patrick Thompson (Norwich, North) : I agree with what my hon. Friend says about housing policy immediately after the war. Is he aware that in Norwich, particularly under the Labour-controlled city council, over-large council estates were built that have led to very serious problems? Due to lack of imagination, the council is not moving on to new policies involving housing associations. Is my hon. Friend aware of that fact, and does he agree that that is not a good policy?
Sir Fergus Montgomery : I agree with my hon. Friend. On every issue, we see eye to eye. In fairness, however, I must point out that what happened in the post-war years is a matter of history. We have to look to the future.
There is doubt in the north as to whether the Government's new policies for housing renewal areas can be delivered. That is because the communities there tend to have low incomes. Their ability to trade up and remain owner- occupiers is limited. Those problems are compounded by minimal levels of capital receipts from asset sales. Perhaps the greatest remaining challenge in public sector housing is the unused stock of local authority estates, which unfortunately is mainly in northern England. The housing needs index, which decides the flow of housing association resources, does not have an indicator that recognises stock condition problems in the local authority sector.
For many years, housing investment programme allocations enabled authorities to maintain existing stock only, and the amount of finance available has not allowed major repairs to be made. That is why the estate action scheme was created, and housing action trusts were expected to tackle the worst problems. I regret that, for political ends, housing action trusts were not as successful as they should have been.
Housing associations play an important part in the estate action initiative, and adequate resources will be necessary if the problems of local authority estates are to be properly tackled. Hulme in Manchester will have the help of five housing associations in replacing all local authority stock, using the five-year rolling programme of targeted housing association grant. The Government seem to accept that housing associations have an important part to play in regenerating local authority estates in the north, but I wonder how that can be squared with inadequate funding for northern housing associations.
Nobody denies that the major problem is homelessness and that it is most severe in London. After all, it is the capital city and, like all capital cities, it tends to be a magnet. However, should we not be considering the underlying causes and trying to prevent young people from migrating to London from other parts of the country? To achieve that, we need better employment prospects, a better environment and better housing conditions in the north, which surely are the core objectives of urban policy. I am told that 30 per cent. of London's homeless people--the largest single group-- come from the north. Therfore, it makes sense to improve prospects in the north, in the hope that it will reduce the number of young people who decide to head for London.
The housing associations that visited our group on 3 July were particularly concerned about the housing needs index. They believe that it distorts the distribution of housing association resources, in contrast with urban policy initiatives by other Departments. They believe that
Column 803
it is a device of officialdom. It is a set of indicators, however inappropriate, that have been arrived at and will be maintained unless they are challenged, which is the reason for my speech. I do not want to go on about the north-south divide, because I recognise the problems that homelessness poses in the south. I wonder whether the Government have considered releasing a larger percentage of capital receipts in southern-based authorities, which could be channelled into tackling homelessness.I pay tribute to the work of housing associations, which have achieved much in improving the quality of life and in tackling housing shortages, but I was asked to draw attention to the distribution of housing association resources because it is feared that the north will be seriously under- resourced at a time of growing need.
The second point that I want to raise is the implementation of the Ibbs report. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House say how many jobs will be lost in the House and which departments will be affected? I am told that many of the Badge Messengers are concerned about job losses. I am particularly concerned about consulting those whose jobs are at risk. I have been told of someone who has worked in the House for more than 20 years and has never been carpeted or warned about his work. That person is concerned about rumours that his job will be advertised. Last week, he sought a meeting with one of the Clerks and was told that his post was to be upgraded, that head-hunters had been asked to do a search and that the post would be advertised nationally in September.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : Cruel.
| Next Section
| Home Page |