| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
FLOOD PREVENTION AND LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94E (Scottish Grand Committee (Bills in relation to their principle)),
27 Jan 1997 : Column 124
Queen's recommendation having been signified--
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
Madam Speaker:
With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Mrs. Jane Kennedy (Liverpool, Broadgreen):
I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for granting me permission to present a petition on behalf of 3,000 of my constituents on the day when the House has been considering the Sex Offenders Bill, a measure which it is hoped will assist in the supervision of sex offenders, and thereby make life safer for our children.
The petition of the residents of Old Swan, Liverpool, declares that they have strong objections to the use of 5 Derby lane as a development unit for the rehabilitation of those convicted of sexual offences, on the ground of its proximity to six local schools and nurseries, a youth club and a public park.
The petitioners therefore call on the House of Commons to urge the Secretary of State for the Home Department to ensure that 5 Derby lane is not granted permission, either now or in the future, to be used for the above purpose.
To lie upon the Table.
27 Jan 1997 : Column 125
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Wood.]
Mr. John Denham (Southampton, Itchen):
Thank you, Madam Speaker for giving me the opportunity to raise an issue that affects at least nine of my constituents in Sholing, Southampton. I realise that that is a relatively small number of people to make the subject of an Adjournment debate, but their situation is a serious one, and one that I hope will be assisted by tonight's debate. Their homes are structurally unsound. They cannot be sold, and they could not be mortgaged. Yet there is no agreement about how they might be repaired, and there is no immediate prospect of any improvement in the situation.
I am speaking on behalf of innocent victims of a series of events outside their control. I hope that, by raising their plight tonight, through publicity and through seeking the support of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), who sits on the Opposition Front Bench, and that of the Minister, it will be possible to find a solution to their problems.
All my constituents who find themselves in the position that I have described have bought their homes from Southampton city council, some under the right-to-buy legislation and others under the voluntary sales policy that existed before the right to buy. All the homes are of pre-cast reinforced concrete. They are all of a particular model--"Wates".
Following widespread concern about the deterioration of PRC-built homes, the Government introduced the Housing Defects Act 1984. Under the Act, grants became available for the repair of properties and, in hardship cases, for re-purchase by local authorities.
Although there was little evidence of serious deterioration of homes formerly owned by the city council, the widespread bad publicity and the passing of the Act blighted all such homes, and most people took advantage of the repair grants. That is what my constituents did. It still grates on them that, shortly after their homes were supposedly repaired, there was a switch, and from then on most people used the grant money to have their homes rebuilt. My constituents were among the last in Southampton to have homes of this type repaired.
The homes were supposed to be repaired in 1990 and 1991. As the Minister knows, a licence and warranty arrangement was established to ensure that repairs to the defective houses were undertaken effectively, and that all repaired dwellings were mortgageable. That arrangement was set up and controlled by a subsidiary of the National House-Building Council called PRC Homes Ltd. The PRC Homes scheme involved the preparation and design of a series of repair schemes. The schemes were developed and had to be approved by a qualified appraiser, after which a licence was issued by PRC Homes to the designer of the repair scheme.
The repair scheme was usually also submitted to each relevant local authority for building regulations and planning approvals, and for grant assistance. That process made it possible to identify whether a licence needed to be amended to suit the particular condition in each local area. After that process, the work was usually tendered and a repairer--a builder--was appointed to do the work.
27 Jan 1997 : Column 126
The reason for tonight's debate is quite simple. For my constituents in Sholing, that process broke down, and broke down badly. What is not in doubt is that the works that were carried out were not carried out to the licence. But there is some doubt whether the licence that was approved was suitable for the type of homes involved and for the working conditions that applied to my constituents' homes. What is at issue, and what I want to ask tonight, is what exactly is wrong, what now needs to be done to put it right, and who is responsible for carrying out and paying for the work.
I shall not go into great technical detail: I do not have the technical expertise to do so, and I shall limit the time that I take reading from other people's technical documents. The fundamental principle of the repair schemes seems to have been that the concrete panels, which were or could be defective, should no longer be load-bearing. Either they had to be removed and replaced, or additional structures had to be put in place that took the load instead.
In the case of the Southampton properties, those principles were breached in a major way. Concrete panels were left load-bearing, and replacement walls were built in such a way as to be incapable of providing a secure structure and a secure home.
To explain why I have asked for an Adjournment debate, I shall go over some of the history. PRC Homes had overall responsibility for the administration of the Housing Defects Act 1984. Michael Dyson Associates obtained the repair licence for the Wates homes in Sholing in Southampton. That company was the agent for thousands of different types of PRC homes up and down the country. The builders were S. J. Wickens. Incidentally, my constituents were refused a choice of builder by Michael Dyson Associates, even though work on other Wates properties in Southampton had been done by a different builder. The local authority was Southampton city council.
I shall not go into all the details, but I must point out that some variations to the normal licence were required to cope with the problem of Wates houses that had a party wall with a city council tenant rather than another home owner. That meant that all the work had to be carried out from one side of the party wall. The treatment of the party wall turned out later to be a significant problem.
The repairs in Sholing were in Coates road, Sullivan road and Parry road, and were carried out between 1990 and 1991. It is accepted that problems were identified during that time. It should be stressed that the problems were identified only because of the alertness and vigilance of some of the home owners. None were identified during the inspections of the properties. Indeed, Michael Dyson Associates signed off the properties as having had the works carried out to the licence conditions. It also issued inspection certificates, which were supposed to carry a 10-year guarantee that would satisfy a mortgage lender. I have one of those certificates, and it is quite worthless.
It is odd that an agent that had a financial interest in the progress of the work was able to approve work and release moneys to itself. A clear conflict of interest lies behind some of the problems. It was only because some of the home owners had some common sense and technical expertise and challenged what had been done to their homes, that the problems came to light.
27 Jan 1997 : Column 127
The city council took the view, consistent with Department of the Environment circulars, that the presentation of a certificate from Michael Dyson Associates was sufficient for it to release grant money. I should say for the record that I chaired the Southampton housing committee in 1990 and 1991. I have checked the records carefully, and I can say that none of the issues was presented to members during that period.
Only after some home owners objected did city council officers refuse to release some funds on some properties. I stress the history, because some people have tried to make my constituents seem unreasonable in what they have done since. The truth is that, throughout this sorry story, my constituents have received a series of reassurances which, on their challenge, turned out to be useless.
I cannot give a blow-by-blow account of what happened in 1990 and 1991, but those who had complained were asked to allow Wickens the builder back into their homes a number of times. Some did, as many as three times, but it became clear that any work being done was cosmetic, and was not dealing with the major structural problems. Given the home owners' disillusionment, it is not surprising that court action seemed to them the only way forward.
In 1991, PRC Homes received correspondence from my predecessor, Christopher Chope; then from one of the home owners; then from solicitors representing seven owners. In my view, it is deeply disappointing that no systematic inspection of the properties in Sholing was carried out by PRC Homes at that time. PRC Homes will say that that was because of the threat of legal action. Later--under pressure from me--it relented, although legal action was still a possibility. By that time, it must surely have been clear that there was potentially a real problem with a number of homes in Southampton, and that it would have been better to intervene.
I understand that, during 1991 and 1992, various discussions took place involving Michael Dyson Associates, the city council and some home owners regarding potential repairs. The tone of those discussions suggested that the owners were being unreasonable in not letting anyone back in to do the work, but they were understandably reluctant to trust the company that had so clearly approved the shoddy previous repairs, or the builder who had let them down so badly.
After my election, I was approached by two of the owners, Mrs. Conroy and Mr. Hampton. I felt that the priority was to find out what needed to be done, and that argument about who should do it should take place later. In December 1992, I sought help from PRC Homes. On this occasion, it did respond, and agreed to inspect properties--but only the properties of Mrs. Conroy and Mr. Hampton: it would not look at others that might be defective.
That was, I believe, a fundamental error. All the onus was being placed--as it had been from the beginning--on home owners to know that there was something wrong with their properties. At that time, I was gradually becoming aware of more and more owners with potential problems.
An inspection took place, and on, 20 May 1993, PRC Homes wrote to Southampton city council saying that the timber frame party wall was fundamentally defective. By
27 Jan 1997 : Column 128
For some home owners, it was now three and a half years since their homes should have been repaired. There was a fundamental breakdown of trust in relation to Michael Dyson Associates, the council and PRC Homes. There is no doubt that the situation had become complex, with some home owners seeking a negotiated solution, some taking or least threatening legal action and some supported in such action by legal aid. Access to the homes was not easy.
In February 1994, I again approached PRC Homes and suggested that we meet to discuss the position. I met Basil Bean, chairman of PRC Homes, here at the House of Commons. It was agreed that a new approach would be tried: PRC Homes would put together a repair scheme and offer it to the home owners, and the city council would provide "decant" accommodation. In June 1994, at Southampton civic centre, I chaired a meeting at which that approach was suggested.
By that time, I knew of nine affected home owners, far more than had contacted PRC Homes. PRC Homes had made no attempt to contact other people with similar property who had had work done by Michael Dyson Associates and Wickens.
By that time, some home owners had decided that the only way forward was either the complete demolition of their homes, and a rebuild, or for someone to re-purchase their homes. At the meeting in Southampton, some owners reserved their rights to press for those options. As those home owners knew, my hope was more modest. It was to achieve, through negotiation, repairs that would at least put people back where they thought they were going to be in the first place: with sound, mortgageable properties. None the less, the city council explored with the Department of the Environment whether the council could receive any extra funding to re-purchase the properties, but that was not possible under the Housing Defects Act.
Some owners were willing to consider repairs. In January 1995, PRC Homes wrote to all owners setting out its offer of repairs and the city council's offer of accommodation. I believed then that the problem was close to resolution, but, two years later, no work has started, although one home may be done in February. That is why I took up the issue again in the autumn.
One of the reasons for asking for this debate is that I could not obtain answers to my letters to PRC Homes. I have now had a reply, but I am sorry to say that we are not much nearer a solution. I accept that there has been a good deal of toing and froing with the owners, which has taken time. Not surprisingly, they want to be satisfied that the work to be done would do the job. I am sorry to say that the story is repeating itself.
Most fundamentally, each owner is being dealt with separately, although their problems are common. Those owners that have challenged the PRC Homes proposals have produced convincing evidence that the proposed repair scheme is inadequate. One of the owners,
27 Jan 1997 : Column 129
Again, I stress that I am not technically qualified to assess the evidence, and all the properties are different, but I find the report persuasive. It confirms that a steel beam has been fixed to a concrete panel, a fundamental breach of the licence, and concludes:
Again, I quote from the survey:
As I have mentioned, there was originally talk of £10,000 per property being needed. Some owners have been told that the cost in their case may reach £20,000. The structural engineer's survey on this one property estimated the repair cost at £37,000. Every estimate puts the repair cost closer to the cost of a rebuild.
I cannot stress too much that it is not right that the scale of the problem should be revealed only by the individual initiative of my constituents. In this case, it is the taxpayer, through legal aid, who has funded the survey. Another constituent has already spent nearly £8,000 on surveys and legal fees in obtaining her own independent advice--all that because there has not yet been a commitment to a comprehensive and inclusive solution to the problem.
Of course I welcome PRC Homes's general acceptance of the need to respond to the crisis faced by my constituents, but PRC Homes must move more speedily and comprehensively to a solution than it has done so far. It is now seven years since the first work was done, four and a half years since I first became involved, and two years since PRC Homes offered to undertake repairs. That time scale is not good enough. There is no sense yet of an organisation that is committed to finding, urgently, a comprehensive solution.
I ask the Minister to support me, because PRC Homes was and is responsible for implementing the Housing Defects Act, which is Government legislation. Others,
27 Jan 1997 : Column 130
That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.--[Mr. Carrington.]
Question agreed to.
That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Flood Prevention and Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.--[Mr. Carrington.]
Question agreed to.
That the draft Road Traffic Regulation (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 4th December, be approved.
That the draft Broadcasting (Sign Language) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 10th December, be approved.--[Mr. Carrington.]
Question agreed to.
10.16 pm
10.17 pm
"If the steel was severed from the concrete panel, as is required by the licence, we believe that the party wall framework would not be capable of carrying the imposed first floor and roof loading. The structural stability of the property would be seriously affected, resulting in potential partial collapse."
That confirms the concern about the party wall, but the report, alongside a lengthy list of poor workmanship and licence breaches, also finds a major breach in the treatment of the non-party walls involving the removal of linings.
"this item has resulted in general misunderstanding by the repairer and designer alike, leading to major constructional defects and problems on site and large scale deviations from the licence. In effect, the removal of internal linings completely revokes the licence which was prepared on the basis of linings remaining."
It goes on to say that a trial hole
"shows the fixing of the roof to the new blockwork to be structurally inadequate, the junction between external cavity wall and internal gable wall to be inadequately tied, and the walls to be poorly constructed. Large scale rebuilding works are urgently required to remedy these defects."
I could go on, but those quotes illustrate the scale of the problem on one property. They have not been reflected in the PRC Homes response to date. The PRC Homes proposals are in respect only of the party wall framework. As they stand, they will not rectify the other major constructional defects.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |