House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 Mar 1997 (pt 25)

Mr. Michael J. Martin (Glasgow, Springburn): Nonsense.

Mr. Walker: It is on the record. What I find so disturbing is that people will not face reality. They should

4 Mar 1997 : Column 782

ask themselves what they should do to address the problem. I am not opposed to using public money to resolve social problems, but I object to using public money again and again when that has obviously failed. If we are to spend public money to build houses, there is merit in doing so in partnership, because the other partner has a vested interest in ensuring that the property is built to a reasonable standard. I am not complaining about the twin-track approach: I am merely saying that the Government are already taking that approach.

Local authorities too often supervise themselves. I do not blame the authorities for that; it is a structural weakness. We should have changed that years ago. They should not be the provider and the supervisor or inspector. A separate body should have that task, because Chinese walls do not work, as we know from bitter experience.

The Government have done more than any previous Government to address the problem of special needs housing. I am proud of what we have achieved. The present arrangements, which involve housing associations and the private sector, help to reduce the amount of money for specific grants. However, they do not reduce the amount of public money that needs to be injected into special needs housing.

Housing benefit should be seen for what it is: it is not free money, it is taxpayers' money that comes out of a separate budget. We, quite properly, criticise the Scottish National party for pretending that we can wish away the housing debt. All that we can do is transfer it to another area of public responsibility and accountability. Someone else has to pick up the tab; someone else has to pay the interest: that someone else is the taxpayer, because there is no one else to do it.

It is difficult to find rational answers. Some people see local government as one thing, central Government as another, and the taxpayer as having no direct link with either. The truth is that the taxpayer has a direct link with both, and it is the taxpayer who picks up all the bills. The Government are trying to find a mechanism for reducing local authority housing debt, which I think is a scandal, because it should never have been allowed to reach such a level. They are doing the right thing and creating the right pressure, and their carrot-and-stick approach will help. Housing benefit is the carrot. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) is wrong if he thinks that the Government have not worked that one out, because they have. That is why they are shifting resources to bring about change.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister. We face a difficult problem. I welcome the fact that the Church takes an interest in these matters. I hope that it realises that it has a part to play. In the past, the Church brought and kept people together. If anyone has failed in that area, it is the Church. Churches have not been able to persuade the populace that families should accept some of the responsibility. They have failed in that, not the politicians.

National and local politicians have failed to look at the whole canvass, because they have had vested interests in different areas. That is unfortunate, because the people who suffer are those in need, whatever their background and wherever they come from. If we are to have a caring, balanced society, we must have an appropriate housing policy. That is the Government's aim, and it is interesting that the Labour party in recent years has followed our policies.

4 Mar 1997 : Column 783

8.19 pm

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland): In a contribution that may be largely critical of the Government, I start with a note of congratulation, or at least thanks, to the Minister for his statement that there should be continuing negotiation and discussion with Shetland Islands councils, as with the other two councils, on the commutation of the outstanding debt by the end of the forthcoming financial year, 1997-98. That will be welcomed. As I said in the Adjournment debate that I secured last month on rural housing, no matter who occupies the Treasury Bench after the next election, I trust that that will be seen through.

The less complimentary part of my speech follows. As has already been widely mentioned in the debate, we are debating a housing support grant settlement that, combined with the cuts in the funding of Scottish Homes, will lead to a substantial withdrawal of investment in Scottish housing in the year ahead, following a significant cut in investment in the present year. That takes place against a background of homelessness and poor housing conditions.

The visible signs of street homelessness indicate a reduction in housing investment. The Government introduced a Scottish rough sleepers initiative when they made their public expenditure announcement in December. We should be thankful for small mercies, but it is important to recognise what a small mercy this one is. The expenditure totals £15 million over three years and £3 million in the first year. That compares with £92 million spent in London in the first year and £270 million spent in London over the first three years. I accept that the scale of the problem is different, but, proportionately, it is not that different. It puts into context what the Government are doing in terms of the rough sleepers initiative. We welcome the fact that they have been converted to the principle of it in Scotland because it has had some results in London. The regret is that the initiative has not been better funded.

Although there are at least 1,000 young Scots, or Scots of any age, sleeping rough at night, in 1994-95, 41,500 households applied as homeless. That was a small drop on the previous year, but double what it was 10 years ago. Households translates into about 76,000 people, of whom 19,800 are children. At our constituency surgeries, most of us see at first hand the problems that can be caused by homelessness, albeit that people come to us to discuss what are essentially local government responsibilities in terms of housing. They are not necessarily people without a bed to sleep in at night. They may be in overcrowded housing or young married couples with a family still having to share with one set of parents or another. That brings considerable tension and, as I know from my own constituency experience, unhappiness and frustration.

In terms of the state of housing, 30 per cent. of Scotland's housing suffers from dampness, condensation or mould and 85,000 houses are officially below tolerable standard. The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) gave the impression that all poor housing in Scotland was in the public sector, but 77 per cent. of below tolerable standard houses are in the private sector.

Much of the below tolerable standard and damp housing in the public sector was built by private sector contractors. That does not excuse what happened, but, even if one wants to look back on history, there is a problem today: a problem of dampness, of condensation,

4 Mar 1997 : Column 784

of mould and of houses below tolerable standard. Anyone who has seen the video that last month by the Edinburgh Tenants Federation will have been made forcefully aware of the appalling conditions in which some of our fellow citizens have to live.

The reality for many people, particularly for young people, impinges so much on their lifestyle and on their education, the chances are that a child in a homeless family is regularly having to change schools, teachers and syllabuses and is unable to establish good solid friendships, which in time means that he is unlikely to reap the full benefit from his education.

A study of 1,000 primary school children in Edinburgh found that 22 per cent. of those living in damp houses were suffering from colds, compared with 11 per cent. in dry houses, so if children live in substandard housing, the chances are that they are missing more time at school because of illness. If they live in overcrowded conditions, the chances are that they will not have the opportunity of a place of quiet to pursue study.

That puts pressures on family relationships, leads to a lack of motivation and may--one would not wish to generalise because many young people manage to overcome many of these deprivations and handicaps--lead and contribute to disruptive behaviour. The Minister's comments about home-school contracts sound nice and cosy in leafy middle-class suburbs, but for a kid living in overcrowded housing with dampness and condensation, who has little motivation or is having to move around bed-and-breakfast accommodation, home-school contracts are a different thing altogether.

We have that background and a reduction in housing investment. It is estimated that in the present year investment in council housing will be a third lower than the planned level for 1996-97. On top of that, about £70 million has been cut from the Scottish Homes approved development programme. That represents a loss of new build particularly in the housing association sector, but also in the public sector and the council house sector. That means fewer roof repairs and fewer window replacements. I have already had correspondence with the Minister on representations that I received from tenants in the Grieveship scheme in Stromness in Orkney. Central heating and rewiring work was not done. Adaptations for people with disabilities will not be done.

That will impact not only on individual tenants, but many small businesses. For many construction companies, contracts for council house refurbishments are an important source of continuing work. The Minister asks, as those on the Treasury Bench often do: where will the money come from? Sixty-three jobs in the construction industry are said to follow on from £1 million worth of investment. If we reduce investment by £1 million, we are likely to lose 63 jobs, with about £500,000 worth of benefits to be paid out, not to mention the tax forgone.