I’m not going to list all of Sir Christopher Benson’s claims to fame. I did that 20 years ago and he has added substantially to the list since then. During the interview with him, I compared him with that other Renaissance man — the late Sir Henry Wells — who, incidentally, had more than a little to do with the 1947 Act which Christopher admires so much.
You have been appointed chairman of the Housing Corporation. The Housing Corporation is a major vehicle — the major vehicle — for housing provision in this country. Local authorities seem to have largely opted out of it for one good reason — they haven’t got any money. The onus is really on the voluntary housing business to get its act together, and it needs money to do it. How is it going?
Very well. Associations are spending over £1bn this year, and half as much again next year. We have had a problem with programming and money, as you know. This is a consequence of the 1988 Act, or its implementation “at some speed” — one ought to add those words. The shift to faster programming and development compared with the original regime left a gap which could not have been foreseen at the time.
It might, with hindsight, have been better to have extended the period of time for the Act’s implementation. As it happened, both the Housing Corporation itself and the housing associations responded to the new regime rather too well. What looked like an overspend was really a bringing forward of allocations. That certainly has not helped the situation during the current year when everyone’s aspirations are to see more housing, for the very reason that local authorities are not able to provide as much as they may have wanted.
At the same time, we all know, too, that building costs, materials and land values have been escalating over the last few years. In the middle of last year there was this hiccup in the housing market which, although bad for the industry, could have been good for the supply of social housing. That, to some extent, exacerbated the problem because the housing associations were quick to see the opportunities and to move in on this territory. It is one of the problems of the whole allocation system that it has not been possible to have a three-year or five-year rolling programme. We try to manage a system producing over 20,000 units a year, through 500 separate associations, within an annual cash limit. If it were possible to have such a rolling programme, then the problems we are looking at today would not exist. There is no point moaning about it. The associations, for whom I have tremendous admiration, are being extremely intelligent in handling what is a difficult period. They are looking at other ways of finding cash. We are moving to cash planning and three-year programmes for them. They have been ingenious, and the corporation is seeking to assist them.
Some of them now have enormous asset bases. They can borrow privately to do what they want to do.
They not only have a good asset base but they have a good track record. We both know that development is no sinecure. Anybody can do it when the market is moving in the right direction. When things get tough, it is a place for experts, and a lot of these people in both big and small associations — including those who have a small but sound asset base — will be able to carry on. The difficulty is going to be with the inexpert people. It is the smaller and inexpert associations that I fear for the most. We would like to be able to allocate cash to those smaller associations so that they can be protected by a larger association but keep their autonomy. They can use the asset base of a larger association to raise funds and lower their risk profile. When the job has been completed, it goes to the smaller association for them to manage.
Because, very often, the smaller association’s management costs are dramatically lower.
That’s often the case. They are much closer to the job, too. Often, they have gone in for a special need — and we mustn’t lose that empathy.
But surely there has to be a housing policy which lasts. You cannot have a housing policy that is intermittent. The stop-go-stop-go system has been a disaster. I have always hoped that the Housing Corporation would be recognised eventually by government as a non-political housing policy medium. Is there any chance of that?
I think that is effectively what it is intended to be. We are, of course, wholly answerable to government for the money that is allocated to us but I think that, taking the point you make, we are also something else. If we use our position properly, we can be the channel to express to government the housing needs of the nation, as perceived by the associations. The recent experience, I think, has not done the Housing Corporation’s image with the Government a great deal of good. It certainly hasn’t with some of the associations either. We have to re-establish credibility. When that is done and we can tell the story with some authority, we can actually be useful to government in helping it to see the need for — and establish — a continuous policy for housing. I think government is very susceptible to that. We’ve got to be the people on the street who know what the problems are, where the needs lie and can communicate that back with authority to the departments concerned and the government of the day.
I always looked on the voluntary housing movement as something of an adventure. It had to be to meet the identified needs — but, as it grew, it became bureaucratic and less adventurous.
I think that is where, again, the Housing Corporation is on the brink of considerable change. There are new members of the Housing Corporation board. This is not in any way a criticism of those who have been there, but what we are bringing in now are more members to add a different flavour to what is already there. This is a flavour that is commercial and city-orientated — the idea being that we need to look outwards. We need the help of other people. If there is innovation, we need to know about it. We are not salesmen but we ought at least to be garners of information and advice — and we ought to be prepared to help and spend a bit of time doing it. I also aim to have a personal crusade on simplification — systems, procedures, papers and language!
It does lead on to the whole inner-cities question. The socialist ideas for controlling land values haven’t worked, but I am concerned that free market forces will prise the needy out of the central areas. Government ministers whom I have asked say they are not looking at it as a problem.
I wish they would. If they are not, I wish they would look at the problem, perhaps through dear old section 52, because it is a much-abused section. We know, for example, that there are some local authorities who are looking at land adjacent to towns or neighbourhoods and saying: “Well, that is not going to be developed commercially for housing for a very long time.” But, because it is largely speculation, if some of that area can be allocated to social housing need, we would give it a special allocation. Maybe that’s the right way, maybe it is not. It needs to be thought about.
You seem to be appointed to any number of difficult jobs — after all, London Docklands Development Corporation was no sinecure. It reminds me a little of Sir Henry Wells. He was given some tough jobs by the then Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
That is an interesting comment. Yes, I have done a lot of jobs and I hope I continue. If I am anything at all, I’m a doer. I don’t claim always to be a well-doer, but I do claim to be, at least, a doer. Some of the jobs I’ve had have been extremely interesting. But, in a philosophical sense, going back to your point, I’ve thought for years that we’ve neglected in the past the quality of our market towns in this country. The market town will not survive without its High Street: it is a very very important ingredient and always has been; I believe it always will be. There is only a certain amount of out-of-town shopping that should be built. But it is ludicrous to have great stretches of road to take people from where they live, to where they work, to where they shop. When these things are brought more coherently together — working, shopping and living — they are actually quite pleasant. They certainly are in the small market towns.
We seem not be investing enough in infrastructure. We’re suffering an ageing system — all the symptoms of an old industrial society. Some of the work is becoming crucial.
Certainly, we pay lip service to that long word “infrastructure”. There is a need for consistent care of things that have already been provided. A perfectly good sewerage system — one of the best in the world, and the other things that we’ve got here. The electrical grid system — wonderful! We haven’t got a water grid. I often wonder why not. The things that are good and have been there a very long time will wear out. And, perhaps, we should have been more vigilant over the years, not only during the last few years but also over many, many years. We are talking about good husbandry, really, and that is what is needed.
I would personally like to see more good husbandry being exercised by government.
But government can only exercise good husbandry in the areas that it knows well. I am not a critic of government — but one has got to be critical of what is achieved. Every government has an objective, whatever its colour, and I certainly know this one has. We’ve seen the benefit of it over the last 10 years. The change in this country has been phenomenal — for the good. That’s on the principles. Government establishes the principles, but it is the people who have to put those principles into effect. Maybe there is a bit of flagging at the moment — but if we look back over recent years there has been a spirit in this country which has been very, very good.
What about the Channel Tunnel as part of the country’s infrastructure. Do you have a view on that?
It can only be an immensely important economic link. We know perfectly well that there are ferries that adequately serve the UK from Europe and vice versa, but we are still not “of” Europe, not entirely. We need a greater cementing of a European mentality as much as anything else. I think it is going to help us to broaden the horizons of our own financial markets just as much as the commodities of our merchants.
Do you have a view generally about planning and how it is going to go within the European Community?
Yes, I do. I believe that the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act was the best bit of legislation in planning terms that the world had ever seen. The fact that it might be marginally out of date in certain respects may or may not be true. Nevertheless, the fundamental planks of planning are so solid and well established that I think we should be doing things the other way round. I think we should be selling our philosophy elsewhere, rather than sitting back to see what directives are hitting us. I think we are a much better disciplined planning nation. If we want to build a road, we actually do care about our trees and forests. All the powers are within the Act, which was very well thought out. There is very little that needs to be done. I would like to see us taking a very positive stance on the quality of our planning system — so that we don’t get darts being aimed at us from time to time from minds that haven’t really pondered the problems.
Is there anything about our society which causes you concern at the moment?
I have a hatred of discrimination of any kind, especially racial. Many of my friends are of other races and other creeds. I do, however, find it very difficult to imagine that we are going to have the homogenous society that I think we need if we don’t preserve and encourage the use of the English language by everyone. People must, of course, have their own languages and their own cultures and be free to use them. Thank God, this country has been built up on those platforms over the years.
But we really ought to have our own tongue in common use throughout the country. I feel very strongly about language. I happen to love this country more than I thought I did — and it is not until I go away and want to come back that I realise how important England is.
I have had a great privilege in the last 18 months. I am the chairman of a public company other than MEPC. As such, it was incumbent on me to go to as many factories as I could. I met the people who work and who want to work. I met a lot of them. I was tremendously impressed all the way down the line. I visited most of the 90 factories which that company has in the UK. The quality of the people was immensely high. I talked to trade union people and the leaders of the chapters. They were as proud of this country and their work as I am. The ugly minority is acknowledged much too much. The real quality in the country still exists and we shouldn’t forget it. I love it.
