§ Q1. Mr. Chris SmithTo ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 May.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major)This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings 492 with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
§ Mr. SmithThe Prime Minister must be aware that this year there will be some 150,000 homeless families in Britain, that many more thousands of our fellow citizens are living in overcrowded and inadequate accommodation, that thousands of construction workers are unemployed and that local authorities have more than £6 billion worth of capital receipts which the Government do not allow them to use because of current Government rules. Will the Prime Minister now allow the local authorities to use their money to build the homes that are needed? Surely that is a matter of simple common sense, and of simple humanity, too.
§ The Prime MinisterAs the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government have a homelessness programme on which more than £300 million was spent last year and which has produced about 17,000 permanent lettings during the past two years for the benefit of homeless families. Local authorities can still learn a great deal about value for money by looking at that programme and in the management of their housing affairs. We have no plans at present to change the present regulations on the release of capital resources.
§ Mr. MoateIs my right hon. Friend aware that his statement the other day that the sovereignty of the House was not up for grabs was warmly welcomed? Bearing in mind the fact that the original European Communities legislation was carried through in a way that precluded the possibility of any amendment whatever, will my right hon. Friend allow a rather more open-minded attitude to any amendments that might come forward to the current Bill which seek to strengthen the sovereignty of this Parliament in relation to future developments in the EC?
§ The Prime MinisterAs my hon. Friend will know, it is not possible to change the terms of the treaty, although that does not necessarily exclude extensive debate and, in certain circumstances, amendment. But the treaty that we have agreed is the treaty to which we shall be inviting the House to give its approval.
§ Mr. KinnockDoes the Prime Minister recall saying on the radio in January:
"We"—
meaning himself—
stopped…the repossessions before Christmas.Would he still make that same claim now?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, I think that the range of schemes that has been produced by the building societies has led to the stopping of many repossessions that would otherwise have taken place, and it is now quite clear that the number is falling away. Where people are entitled—it was to this point that I suspect that I was referring—to income support payments, those payments can be made and repossessions should not continue.
§ Mr. KinnockThe Prime Minister was right to suspect what he was saying. It provoked exactly the same reaction in me. Does he recall that the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised in December that his mortgage rescue scheme would reduce repossessions by 40,000? Yet, according to replies from his own Ministers, in the first three months of this year, action was started against 42,000 families. Will 493 he not now concede that the scheme has been a complete flop and start taking steps to ensure that we have an effective scheme before thousands more families are put out of their homes?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman knows that repossessions occur at any time—not just at times of difficulties. There have been repossessions at times when this country's economy has been the strongest ever known —and often they are because of domestic difficulties in the families themselves. Everyone regrets owner-occupiers losing their homes, but the right hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that only about 0.5 per cent. of home owners have had their properties repossessed. He ought to put that in the context of what happened in the past as well.
§ Mr. KinnockDoes not the Prime Minister recognise that for the small percentage of home owners to which he referred, repossession is a 100 per cent. tragedy? Does he acknowledge that many more families are under intense pressures? Will he not address himself to the fact that it is necessary, in a country in which there could again be 80.000 repossessions this year, for the Government to introduce a proper mortgage rescue scheme? It makes no sense at all to put thousands of families out of their homes.
§ The Prime MinisterWe have done so. As the right hon. Gentleman clearly did not take this on board last time, I reiterate that the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor are helping people facing difficulties. Many lenders have agreed not to repossess where mortgage interest is covered by income support. That is the position. Rescheduling is proving particularly helpful. The right hon. Gentleman ought not to be so hypocritical. His party would have denied nearly 1.5 million people the opportunity to become home owners in the first place.
§ Dr. Michael ClarkIs my right hon. Friend aware that, at the last election, several old and disabled people in my constituency—and I suspect elsewhere—did not vote because doctors wanted to charge £8 for a sick note that would have allowed them a postal vote? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that situation ought not to prevail and that some greedy doctors should not deny old and disabled people the vote? Will he think about that matter and see what can he done in time for the next general election?
§ The Prime MinisterI was not aware of that situation, and I will invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to examine it.