Housing Need

HC Deb 18 July 1996 vol 281 cc1340-94

[Relevant documents: Second report from the Environment Committee of Session 1995–96, on Housing Need, House of Commons Paper No. 22–1, the Government's response thereto (Cm 3259) and the Department of the Environment Annual Report.' The Government's Expenditure Plans 1995–96 to 1997–98 (Cm 2807).]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a further, revised sum not exceeding £3,083,844,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1997 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on Housing Revenue Account Subsidy; slum clearance, repairs and other improvements to private housing; payments to the Housing Corporation; the transfer of local authority estates to new landlords; accommodation for the homeless and special needs accommodation; housing management and mobility; rent officers and Rent Assessment Panels; grants for the provision of gypsy sites; grants to home improvement agencies; asylum seekers' special housing grant; for research projects, including European Community programmes; publicity; and for sundry other housing and construction services and projects.—[Mr. Curry.]

6.12 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about the Environment Committee's report on housing need, which is an important issue.

I thank all those who submitted evidence to the Committee. A Select Committee—certainly, the Environment Committee—depends a good deal on the quality of evidence, and the willingness of those who submit it to come before the Committee and answer questions. I also thank all the staff in the Select Committee office—including Steve Priestley, the Clerk—for helping us to marshal the evidence and organise our activities. I am also grateful to our specialist advisers, Christine Whitehead and Peter Chapman, who gave us invaluable advice and helped to steer us into the crucial areas of investigation. Finally, I am grateful to the Committee itself, which worked in a very co-operative way.

Let me express particular appreciation to my predecessor in the Chair, the hon. Member for West Hertfordshire (Mr. Jones), who is now the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency. I say that for two reasons. First, I have some reservations about the way in which Select Committees work. They depend on a Government majority within them, and the Government sometimes try to influence their workings and, perhaps, to encourage them not to become too deeply embroiled in some of the more controversial issues.

Between 1983 and 1992, the Committee produced some excellent reports on "green" issues, but during that time it never examined local government finance—for instance, the whole question of the poll tax—or housing, because its then Chairman felt that on such controversial matters the Select Committee would not work particularly well. I was very pleased when the hon. Member for West Hertfordshire became Chairman, and agreed—perhaps as a result of a little pressure from Opposition Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford)—that we should try to examine some of those more controversial issues. In 1993 we were very successful, managing to consider the question of the Housing Corporation and housing associations and producing what I considered to be a useful report.

One of that report's key recommendations was for the Government to publish again their estimates of housing need. I was disappointed by their response, in which they said that they were still not prepared to publish the figures. I was very pleased that the hon. Member for West Hertfordshire had joined the Government when, relatively soon after that, he obviously remembered the report of his Select Committee and was part of the process that produced the Government's figures for housing need.

I have always felt a little sympathy for the Government. First they are castigated for not publishing the housing need figures; then, as soon as they publish them, they are told that the figures are wrong. If we are to have a proper debate in this country about three issues, we must have those housing need figures. First, there is the sheer importance of meeting housing need effectively. As the introduction to our report states, Shelter is one of the most basic human needs. Being without a home is a catastrophe. Not only are the roofless deprived of the means to improve their lot: an address holds the key to employment, credit, goods, support, and services. When we quote statistics, we should bear in mind the number of individuals who do not have adequate housing. It is easy for those who live comfortably to forget them. The first reason why housing need is an important issue, then, is the human tragedy that lies behind it.

Secondly, providing housing takes up a substantial proportion of the resources of both individuals and the nation. That proportion has tended to grow. Back in 1960, individual households spent about 9.5 per cent. of their income on housing; the figure has now risen to about 15.8 per cent. Some of those who are in the least adequate housing—in poor furnished rented accommodation—spend more than a quarter of their income on housing costs. While Government expenditure on housing provision, particularly the provision of social housing, has tended to decline, expenditure on housing benefit has risen dramatically. Thus the second reason why it is important that we have a clear idea of housing need relates to the personal and national allocation of resources.

Thirdly, we need to know about housing need because if we need more houses, we need to decide where they will be built. There is also the question of planning, which spills over into matters such as public transport. Low-density housing affects public transport. Such issues are important. We must also protect the countryside. We do not want it to be built over. Thus the three reasons why we need to understand housing need are: individual needs, allocation of resources and the planning implications.

On resources, the central question is: how long will the problem last? The Select Committee appreciated that the Government published the figures up to the year 2006, but we wanted them to publish figures up to 2011 or, possibly, 2016. I regret that the Government have not been able to accept that recommendation. I understand that the further into the future the estimate, the more difficult it is to make. The longer estimates may turn out to be pretty inaccurate towards the end, but they can give us an idea of the trend.

It is important to understand the trend. By analogy, if one is swimming against the current, it helps to know when the current will change. One's behaviour will be different if one knows that the current will change in five minutes from one's behaviour if one knows that it will never change. It would help if the Government would examine predicting beyond the year 2006. If housing need continues in an upward curve, we shall have to behave in a way different from how we would behave if, after the year 2006, the figure started to fall. Will we be trying to meet a need that has peaked or a continuing one? I hope that the Government push further forward their housing need predictions, if not tonight, then certainly over the next few months.

The Committee received much evidence that the Government's estimates have not taken account of unmet need. I was pleased that paragraph 39 of the Government's response hinted that they might be changing their attitude and that future studies would try to make more of an estimate of unmet need. I also noticed that they criticised the Committee for not putting a figure on unmet need, which I accept, and that they tried to argue that unmet need was falling. They suggested that the number of people sleeping rough was declining. I do not have much confidence in that view, because my experience from Greater Manchester and from walking around London is that the problem is not declining.

The Government say that fewer people are having to be put into bed-and-breakfast accommodation and that the figures for overcrowding have gone down. The statistics may be correct, but they were not much supported by the evidence that the Committee received—and certainly not by my constituency experience. At this stage, I do not want to argue too much about who is right and who is wrong. I want to impress on the Government the fact that we need a calculation of unmet need.

In considering housing need, it is crucial that we examine existing stock. There has been a tendency in the House to bandy about the idea that local authorities have a lot of empty properties. That is a myth. The evidence to the Select Committee was that the majority, although not all, of local authorities had got to grips with the problem and were doing well. The good ones at least were reducing the number of empty council properties. I am afraid that the Government, especially the Ministry of Defence, were not doing quite so well; we shall have to watch what happens in the next few months in respect of that.

The number of empty privately owned houses is an intriguing question. With the downturn in the housing market, that number has tended to increase. How many empty owner-occupied, or perhaps owner-unoccupied houses do we need to have a properly regulated housing market? It is pointed out, especially by people who are worried about building lots of new houses all over the countryside, that if all the owner-occupied houses—I am getting tangled; perhaps I need another phrase—were occupied, we would not need to build so many houses. How many houses need to be empty to allow people to move around the country?

The next question is: how many houses are in the wrong place? That fundamental question has not had much attention. In some areas, there is almost a surplus of houses. People find it difficult to sell their houses because the jobs have disappeared, and councils find it difficult to let houses. In allocating resources, we must decide whether to take steps to ensure that the jobs go to those areas or whether to help people to move to such areas for retirement or other reasons rather than having to build more and more houses in areas where there are employment opportunities.

How many houses in the existing stock are of the wrong type? The Select Committee received much evidence on the problem of bed-sits. Some housing associations, and certainly some local authorities, were enthusiastic about building bed-sits in the late 1950s and 1960s. They were aimed especially at elderly people, with the idea that they would not want large dwellings to look after and would be happy with bed-sits. Many of them were happy in the 1960s, but increasingly, elderly people are not happy with them. They prefer to have bedrooms separate from their living rooms and often would prefer two bedrooms, especially in the case of couples where one has an infirmity and does not sleep well. Such problems need to be tackled. Bed-sits are becoming increasingly difficult to let.

I am critical of Stockport council in my constituency, and of one or two others, which, perhaps because of the pressure not to have empty properties, are keen to let bed-sits to people who come off the housing waiting list. Those people sometimes have drug-related problems. They may be alcoholics or have psychiatric problems. They would be difficult neighbours. I could make a pretty good fuss about it if such people lived next to me. But it is unfair when they are put into bed-sits next to elderly people who have enough problems coping with day-to-day life. In considering the existing stock, we must remember that many bed-sits must be remodelled if we are to get the best use out of them and not produce major problems.

My last point on the existing stock is that some social housing estates, because of the way in which they have developed, are unpopular. Perhaps the Government have not spent enough money, but they have allowed local authorities to spend considerable amounts in implementing the estate action scheme and other schemes to reinvigorate some of the estates. Some of those schemes have been extremely successful and some of them will give long life to those estates. Some of them have had spectacularly large sums spent on them but, five or six years later, we cannot see the benefit of that expenditure.

In the Chamber we have, over the years, become hung up on whether or not properties are owned. We tend to take the view that if someone owns his property, he looks after it and if he is a tenant, he does not. I can think back to minutes of meetings of tenants' associations in my constituency in the 1950s and 1960s—although they were tenants, they behaved as if they owned the estate. The idea of ownership—whether a property is bought using a mortgage or whether rent is paid—is important.

When the Select Committee visited Sandwell and one or two other places, it saw tenants' representatives—tenants' enablers. The schemes that have implemented housing renewal on council estates and have involved the tenants, have been successful. I only wish that the same had happened in parts of my constituency in Stockport. The housing manager, Mr. Hilton—who has just been promoted—was very good at getting the Government to give the council permission to spend money, but he never overcame the problem of management. I am disappointed, because I do not believe that the tenants in some areas of my constituency feel that the estates are theirs or that they have responsibility. They tend to feel that it is the housing manager's estate and behave accordingly.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry)

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said about ownership. One important factor is the way in which the estate is designed—its physical shape. It is much easier for someone who lives in a more conventional street with neighbours, in a classical setting, to feel a sense of ownership than it is for someone living in a high-rise block, which is part of a series of blocks with wasteland between each one. That is why one of the key factors of the estate action and estate renewal programmes has been to consider the overall design and to accept elements of demolition; in that way, we can create a physical environment that gives people a greater sense of ownership.

Mr. Bennett

I accept what the Minister says—there is considerable evidence to support that view. If estates are redesigned and properties taken out, the available stock is reduced. The redesign may make the stock better, but if there are to be more demolitions—in order to achieve what the Minister has just suggested, more demolitions may be necessary—we may need to build more houses or build between blocks. We should house people in dwellings that are people-friendly, not people-unfriendly. The Minister should do a little more work on weighing up the consequences of repair as opposed to rebuild. I am worried that there are some tower blocks and deck access schemes where it might be better value for money in the long run to start again rather than to try to make the existing dwellings people-friendly.

Another aspect of existing stock that concerned the Committee was that of red lining. I do not want to become involved in arguments across the Chamber about whether it was a great idea in the 1980s to encourage many people, particularly council tenants in high-rise blocks of flats, to buy their property. It has happened and, having happened, I am worried about the number of people who are finding it difficult to resell their property. There is nothing worse on a council estate than to have many houses that are well looked after and two or three houses or flats that are neglected or empty and look a mess. It is particularly upsetting if those properties are owned by individuals who have simply walked away from them.

In the 1980s, the building societies were keen to let people have mortgages on some of the properties; now, the building societies have lost their enthusiasm for lending money. The building societies have let this country down on too many occasions. In the 1960s and early 1970s, they were reluctant to lend money on old, Victorian properties, some of which were good value for money. On that occasion, the local authorities acted as the lender of last resort and made it possible to borrow on those properties. Interestingly, more recently, the building societies have taken over responsibility for many of those mortgages from local councils. Having shown enthusiasm for providing mortgages for residents in big blocks of flats, it is unfair of the building societies to withdraw that support, and doing so causes a great deal of hardship. One crucial factor when considering housing need is the analysis of existing stock, of which we must make as good a use as possible.

Have the Government made a correct estimate of total housing need? Points that I have made about housing stock suggest that I believe that the Government's estimate is too low. One of the Committee's most difficult tasks was to come up with the right estimate. We fudged it and said that we thought that, on the whole, the Government's estimate should be at the top of the range rather than towards the bottom.

In response to the Select Committee's report, the Government attempted to justify their figures. They said that if we continued to build at the rate of about 60,000 social houses per year, that would be perfectly all right. The Government achieve their own target, but that target is low. The Government's excuse is that we do not need as many social houses provided by the public sector, because the private rented sector is doing better than we thought.

I am worried about the private rented sector—I am not against it in principle, but I am worried about some of it. The evidence in my constituency shows that some of the private rented sector consists of poor-quality housing. If it was cheap, poor-quality housing, we might be able to say that the Government had found a good bargain. But I am worried because much of it is poor-quality housing—people have to live in inadequate housing—but it is dear and it is paid for out of housing benefit. The tenant gets a poor deal; the Government get a poor deal because housing benefit amounts to a big bill.

The private rented sector has also grown, but only temporarily, as a result of the number of people who have found it difficult to sell their property, so have rented it out. I do not think that all those cases should be dealt with as if they provided social housing. If someone rents out a house in one part of the country and cannot sell it, when he moves to another part of the country, he has to rent rather than buy. That process does not contribute to social housing. I accept that, sometimes, when property is difficult to sell, people move into it as social housing and receive high housing benefit to pay for it. We need more information about the private rented sector before the Government can justify their low estimates.

Mr. Michael Stephen (Shoreham)

The hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn attention to the problem of the high prices being paid by the public, through housing benefit, for sub-standard housing in the private sector. How does he propose to tackle the problem? Would he suggest limiting housing benefit to a certain amount according to the property's condition? What other method would he suggest?

Mr. Bennett

I do not want to return to the time when we subsidised housing as opposed to people, but we may have gone a little too far in the direction of subsidising the individual, which has produced the poverty trap. In this debate, I simply want to illustrate that that was one of the areas that concerned the Select Committee. We are worried about the estimates. We understand the Government's argument about the private rented sector, but at this stage, we need more information.

What I am coming to—this is not strongly recommended by the Select Committee—is that if we are to try to push up the number of social houses that we are building, we must consider a pretty fundamental question: where will the money come from? I would certainly argue very strongly that, although the Government are looking for tax cuts in the autumn, if they have any spare money, an awful lot more ought to be going into housing.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, on the Front Bench, that, although he has a scheme for building more houses from capital receipts in the first one or two years of a Labour Government—if he is a little inefficient, it might go into a third year—we must consider firmly where the money will come from after that. We might be able to reduce the amount that is being spent on housing benefit by getting people back to work. The minimum wage may throw some people off housing benefit.

I would argue, although I shall not expand on it tonight, that we should weigh up the Treasury rules and the fact that there has been too much pussyfooting around about where the money comes from. If a country is investing in housing that will be of long-term benefit, such expenditure should not be treated in quite the same way as borrowing money to pay social security bills or other expenditure. That is not in the Select Committee's report; it is very much my view. One of the advantages of the Government publishing figures and of this debate is that we can argue in other areas of public expenditure that housing need must be met.

One issue that came out strongly in evidence to the Select Committee was special housing need. It is very obvious that the elderly and other groups of people need special housing. One of the most interesting things that the Committee found concerned lifetime homes. We were invited up to York by the Joseph Rowntree trust to look at some of the houses that it was developing, which were designed so that people with disabilities of one sort or another could adapt them at a very small extra cost. I am not saying that such houses are the whole solution. The Government have been considering building regulations and how far houses should be designed to be friendly to adaptation by people who live in them for short or lifelong periods. I hope that those regulations will come out fairly soon.

Where will the houses go? There was much technical argument in Committee on how far it is possible to measure housing need looking downwards from a national perspective and how far it can be considered from the bottom up. One of my disappointments is that it is not possible to get the two figures to meet to see what is happening. There was much evidence that those two approaches should be merged and that there should not be such a top-down approach.

One of the crucial questions is how many new houses we need. Paragraph 16 of the Government's response says that there will be a discussion document. The Secretary of State for the Environment has been going around the country saying that 4.4 million new homes need to be built. Where should they go? I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us when that discussion document will be published, so that we can have a proper debate on it. I suggest that the method for planning housing in London ought to be considered for other areas. The London housing capacity survey is quite important.

It is important that much of the new housing is built on brown-field sites. I congratulate the Government on the fact that almost 50 per cent. of new housing is being built on such sites, but I suggest that they should work the figure up even higher. I have some reservations about what a brown-field site is. I am not quite sure whether Stonehenge counts or not. There is a little evidence that some of the sites that are classified as brown-field sites do not have quite the grime of the gasworks with which we would associate the term brown-field site.

As the first paragraph of the Select Committee report says, The Government's declared aim is 'a decent home … within reach of every family'''. That ought to be the nation's aim, but our report makes it quite clear that we have a very long way to go to meet it.

6.45 pm

Sir Irvine Patnick (Sheffield, Hallam)

I join the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) in his tributes to the people he mentioned. I know that he is a modest person, but if he will permit me, I should like to pay tribute to him. He rules our proceedings in Committee in a fair and frank manner. I do not intend, however, to follow his remarks. I want to travel a different route, but I hope that we reach the same destination.

When a witness mentioned forecasting future housing need while, as a member of the Environment Committee, I was taking evidence on housing need one day, my memory flashed back to many years ago to when I was but a mere house building contractor. Later on, I remembered a time years ago when I was trying to complete a form— I think that it was from the Government—on forecasting how many houses I would build in that quarter, bearing in mind mortgages, overdraft, land availability and, if they were ever built, whether they would sell in the prevailing economic climate. Oh yes, I remember the Labour Government well. All had to be taken into consideration. In addition, I think that there were penalties if the form was not returned on time. Furthermore, a check had to be made on the previous form that I had completed. It was a time-consuming crystal-ball job, which was not very scientific bearing in mind the fact that there were no computers, spreadsheets and all of today's tools of the trade.

This was a time when bricks had to be unloaded by hand and were not delivered on pallets, when concrete and mortar were mixed by hand and not delivered on site, and when plastic drainage pipes were in their infancy. Window frames were timber and eaves, gutters and rainwater pipes had just started changing from timber and cast iron to plastic. That was only 25 years ago.

Around that time, municipal housing gave way to a new style of accommodation. The traditional housing, which my right hon. Friend the Minister refers to as classic-style dwellings, was terrace blocks. Four blocks, six blocks and eight blocks, as they were called, were being replaced by high-rise, high-density blocks. The life expectancy of such dwellings, which wasted a vast amount of communal land around them, was limited. I watched many being built, and lived to see many demolished.

In Leeds, a most famous block of flats—Quuryhill flats—which was reputed to be the largest in Europe, had a built-in waste disposal system. If my memory serves me correctly, those flats were demolished because the cost of replacing the waste disposal system and putting the flats back into good repair was too great. Even then, municipal authorities had to outdo others and build even bigger and better blocks than other towns. Such rivalry continues today.

I recollect a light rail system being built in Manchester, and Sheffield following with its own system. The building of Supertram in Sheffield created chaos on the streets, and I imagine that there is a huge shortfall between the £240 million Government grant and the project's actual cost. Incentives to ride on such facilities, such as park and ride, need to be addressed. Many cities are on the starting blocks waiting to introduce their own light railway systems, which are truly no different from the high-rise, high-density concept—but I digress.

Houses in terrace-type blocks had their own front and back doors, and their own gardens to the front and rear. Access to the backs of all the houses was gained by way of a covered passage. The semi-detached houses on those "classic" estates were much sought after. Some of those council estates exist today. They are still very popular, and many of the houses have been bought under the Government's right-to-buy legislation.

During the period when compulsory purchase and slum clearance were in vogue, I became a member of Sheffield city council and of its housing committee and public works committee, the latter under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). A former chairman of Sheffield housing committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), was then a Member of Parliament.

At that time, the Parker Morris standards determined the facilities and the plumbing, and whether a property could be improved at reasonable cost. Thus, dwellings that could have had a long life were demolished in the name of progress, and their occupants dispersed over the city. Communities were broken up, and the small shops that served the area were either demolished or had to close.

That was the start of a new environment in which traditional values were lost. I accept that not all the dwellings that were cleared were capable of being improved. Some would have had to be pulled down anyway, but many of the dwellings, with a damp-proof course inserted, new electrics, and a plumbing system coupled with a bathroom and kitchen, would have had a passport into the next century and onwards.

Meanwhile, high-density blocks of concrete flats with flat roofs invaded. If I had to select one such site as an example of that era it would be the Kelvin flats in Sheffield, which will be known to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), who is now in the Chamber. I remember canvassing those flats during an election campaign. The open decks turned into wind tunnels, making them freezing places. If one knocked on a door and waited, the tenant came up the steps to the front door—usually up the steps of the flat next door. Millions of pounds were poured in to try to improve those flats, but eventually the decision was made to demolish them all.

Some of the properties that had been removed to make way for the flats would still have been around, not only today but for many years to come. They had in-built durability, and we have yet to ascertain the durability of the dwellings built in the 1950s and 1960s.

The demolition of the original properties created the problem of breaking up communities, for many houses had been replaced by fewer dwellings—flats that were not readily accepted in an area not used to communal life in blocks of flats. That was all the fault of the nature of the planning brief in those days.

I recollect with fond memories that, on a popular estate—one of the estates that the Minister would describe as "classical"—it was possible to guess the age of the occupants of the houses. The names on the electoral roll were the giveaway, because they were no longer in vogue. The state of the garden too, gave a clue in most cases, letting us know that the residents were elderly, and might have moved out if there had been a smaller property nearby to move into. The four, six and eight blocks could have been converted into self-contained flats, with central heating and a lift on the outside of the block, which would in turn have released the other dwellings for other residents to use.

That would have increased mobility, yet most old people, rightly, wish to stay in their existing homes. Who can blame them? A good friend of mine aged 91—I am sure that he will not mind my mentioning him—has recently lost his sight. Last Saturday, he managed to find his way to my home, and after a long chat I offered to walk him back home to his wife. It was not far.

When we arrived at my friend's home, he mentioned his concern about the garden, and I asked if I could look at it. Hon. Members must not imagine that it is a large garden. We had to go down some steps—six in all. My friend counted them out, and informed me that some were wider than others. Then he pointed out where his roses, his soft fruit and his lawn were. Despite his blindness and disability, my friend had his memories and was at home. Move him, and he would be totally lost.

When I was in the house building industry, the sites were either green-field sites or infill plots. Today, our planners, like the Chairman of the Environment Committee, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, call them brown-field sites. The planners advocate making better and more imaginative use of existing buildings and empty homes.

The planners also advise that projections of housing provision should be subject to further examination as part of the preparation of a development plan, saying that we must ensure that up-to-date information is used, and should even take into account information on demographic and housing market trends, as well as land availability. House builders and councils will in future have to monitor the supply of land, while advice on the affordability of housing is spelt out in policy planning guidance note 3—PPG3.

Rural areas can be affected by "in-migration", which is a new word to me. Today, local authorities are advised to make use of existing housing stock and to reduce the number of empty dwellings. That is advice that a council such as Sheffield could take on board.

Last year in Sheffield, there were 330 properties vacant for up to three weeks, 363 vacant for between three and six weeks, 810 vacant for between six weeks and six months, 324 vacant for between six months and one year, and 219 vacant for more than one year—a total of 2,046. Those are the Audit Commission's figures, not mine.

In the Government's response to the Committee's report, it is said that, although the void rate is about 2 per cent., that includes properties in need of extensive renovation before they can be used, and properties awaiting demolition. Nationally, the number of local authority void properties awaiting minor repairs or letting averages just over 1 per cent., yet the percentage of Sheffield local authority dwellings unlet is 2.85 per cent., and the percentage for Yorkshire and Humberside is 1.95 per cent. Another interesting fact is that the average time taken to relet in Sheffield is 48 days.

The recommendation of today's planners is to encourage the conversion of larger under-occupied dwellings into flats. That takes me back to what I said before about terraced houses. It is a funny old world. Planners also advocate the conversion into dwellings of suitable non-residential property, such as former mill offices, warehouses and empty space above shops, and recycling vacant, under-used and previously developed land in urban areas. That advice could be followed by Sheffield development corporation in the lower Don valley—by building houses where factories used to be.

In rural areas, infill sites in rural settlements, when appropriate to their character and structure, may be a solution, but without incursion into the green belt. More is the pity that the planners of yesteryear were not given that simple advice, which today we can all go along with. If they had been, we would have a larger stock of what an old Sheffield alderman, a former chairman of the housing committee who is no longer with us, called units of accommodation.

It has been an enjoyable experience for me to return to talking about building, albeit for a short time. I welcome the Government's response to the Select Committee report on housing need, especially the fact that they accept that the published estimates are but work in progress, and that they are working on a way of improving estimates of the demand for housing.

I also welcome the fact that the Government fully recognise the importance of improving their understanding of the factors that affect the number and type of households that are formed, and I await with great interest their discussion document, which will examine trends.

The Select Committee commented on empty dwellings. It is true that the performance of local authorities as landlords, with all their vacancies, leaves a lot to be desired. That factor is taken into account and used in the housing revenue account subsidy calculation, in recognition of the rental income that is lost to authorities. The proportion of local authority properties that are void while awaiting letting averages just over 1 per cent.

As I have already said, the private and public sectors must grow together to ensure that accommodation is available for our needs both today and in the future. I would have commented on many other aspects of the Government's response to the Select Committee report, but I know that others are waiting to speak.

In conclusion, the advice that planners are giving us today could result in yet another change in housing accommodation. Who knows whether, in years to come, the properties that were recommended to be converted from industrial use to dwellings may return to their former use so that the housing wheel will have gone a full cycle.

6.59 pm

Mr. Greg Pope (Hyndburn)

I enter the debate with some trepidation, given the number of members of the Environment Committee present and the fact I am not a member of that Select Committee.

I begin by warmly welcoming the Committee's report on housing need. It demonstrates the scale of housing need in the United Kingdom and the extent to which the Government have underestimated it. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on his wide-ranging introduction to this evening's fairly brief debate and say with some consternation that I found little to disagree with in the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick). I was interested in his recollection of canvassing deck access flats in Sheffield, and their later demolition. I trust that there was no correlation between his canvass returns and the decision to demolish the flats.

As a member of the housing committee on Blackburn borough council, I recall taking the decision to demolish deck access flats many years before local authorities had paid for them. The decision was made on the correct grounds—people did not want to live in them. The hon. Member for Hallam may share my view that the decision to build the flats in the 1960s was understandable. When faced with the squalor of urban housing in the 1960s, many local authorities did what they thought best and built high-density housing, some of it deck access. It turned out to be a tragic mistake, but there is no point in trying to allocate political blame.

I shall address a narrow part of the report—that relating to private sector disrepair—but I am not making a partisan speech. The Government attempted to address the problem in recent legislation and, to be fair to them, they recognised some of the deficiencies inherent in the existing grant system. In 1993, the Department of the Environment noted that the mandatory grants system had given rise to unsustainable financial pressures, and in 1995 it stated that mandatory grants have created unrealistic expectations. The demand for grants has exceeded the resources available. That is a masterly understatement in respect of my constituency.

Also to be fair to the Government, some of the measures that they have introduced over the past few years have been an improvement on what went before. For example, there is fairly general recognition that housing renewal areas were an improvement on housing action areas and general improvement areas. It is a pity that, when the Government first flagged up the idea of housing renewal areas before the 1987 general election, they implied that the scheme would attract extra Government support. It has never been forthcoming

It is now clear that, even with housing renewal areas, the mandatory grants system was failing. Many local authorities—including mine—have not been able to meet the huge demand for mandatory grants and, therefore, comply with the law. The Department of the Environment concluded that the main problem with the arrangements is that, while resources remain finite the system has turned out largely demand led. Nowhere has that been shown more starkly than in my constituency.

Most of the housing in my constituency—and in east Lancashire generally—was constructed during the industrial revolution. Although it served its purpose well, there is little doubt that, as towns expanded, houses were built fairly rapidly and, inevitably, some corners were cut.

Much of the original housing remains. More than half of the houses in my constituency were built before the first world war. That is not unusual in the urban parts of Lancashire and Yorkshire. Decay in those properties has been unavoidable, and there are now around 9,500 homes in need of statutory intervention because they are unfit for habitation. Another 5,500 homes need immediate assistance to avoid becoming unfit in the near future. So, 15,000 homes require serious renovation. The Minister would not disagree that it is broadly unacceptable in this day and age that 15,000 families in my constituency should live in sub-standard housing.

It is interesting to note that, in response to the Department's consultation paper, the Association of District Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities stated: if the Government's proposals are implemented"— they are now in the process of implementation— conditions in the private sector will inevitably continue to deteriorate and more people on low incomes will be condemned to live in officially uninhabitable accommodation, with the associated consequences for related policy areas such as ill health and area regeneration. The Government have placed local authorities in a dilemma. Until now, they have stated that mandatory repairs have to be carried out on properties, otherwise the local authority can be hauled before the local government ombudsman, but they are not prepared to fund even a fraction of the cost of meeting that requirement. If local authorities spent money that they did not have, however, there is no doubt that the Government would seek to have the councillors surcharged. Local authorities are in a no-win situation.

The Government are now in the process of extricating themselves from that appalling mess by removing the mandatory duty on local authorities to provide home improvement grants for people whose properties fail the fitness standard. That is all well and good for the Government, but where does it leave my 15,000 constituents who are in housing need and the hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country who face similar difficulties?

Many people recognise the scale of the problem. The Select Committee heard evidence that there are 1.5 million properties that are unfit for human habitation in England alone. They include 157,000 homes without heating other than portable heaters, 272,000 homes without adequate ventilation, 165,000 homes without a bathroom and 150,000 homes that do not meet the bedroom standard for space. The director of the House Builders Federation told the Select Committee that unfitness in the private sector was both a significant problem and one that is not easy to resolve. I agree.

Some housing is simply beyond repair, and in those circumstances clearance is the only option. My local authority is far from unique in having insufficient resources to clear such properties to make room for regeneration. As time passes, an increasing number of properties fall into that category and certain areas are desperately in need of clearance.

My constituency suffers from the well-known problem of clearance blight. People know that their properties need clearing, as does the council, but they cannot sell their houses, and the local authority does not have the resources to demolish them. That has led to an increasing problem nationwide, but especially in east Lancashire. People simply give up hope and abandon their low-value, privately owned terraced houses. As a result, void properties that are privately owned fall into disrepair and are abandoned while—even in constituencies such as mine where homelessness was unheard of 15 years ago—there is an increasing problem of homelessness.

The School of Advanced Urban Studies in Bristol produced a report in 1994 that concluded that there was a "crisis in housing renewal", and which went on to say that there was a continuing problem of unfitness and disrepair on a substantial scale, and that in addition to this enormous backlog, other properties will continue to fall into disrepair in the future". The residents of those properties are entitled to ask the Government this: if they could not access improvement grants when they had a mandatory right to them, how on earth can they access a grant when that right has been removed? That is a matter of real concern in my constituency, and to the 1.5 million people who live in sub-standard housing. The Government should be concerned about that, but instead of facing up to the problem, they are running away from it.

I wish to refer briefly to public sector housing, about which the Committee took evidence. There is not a great deal of public sector housing in my constituency, where more than four out of five homes are privately owned, but many of the council estates have been greatly improved in the past few years. To be fair to the Government, the estates have been improved because the council has been able to work in partnership with the Government in the estate action programme. More than 1,000 properties in my constituency have benefited from that programme. I know what a difference it has made to many of my constituents, and I pay tribute not only to the Department of the Environment and the Minister, but to the local authority.

Sadly, the fact remains that a large number of properties—a similar number, in fact—have not benefited from estate action and they are in desperate need of investment and renovation to bring them up to the minimum standard. The problem, which must be repeated throughout the country, is with estates that have not been renovated—the estate action programme seems to have stopped but, as far as I am aware, nothing meaningful has been put in its place.

I have been trying recently to help the residents of the Sands estate in Rishton. Residents of that estate are in appalling housing need. One told me a week ago that a person would have to be absolutely desperate to accept a house on that estate. There is no way in which the local authority can access resources to help those people out of their desperate problems. I hope that the Minister will address the matter in his winding-up speech. What will to happen to people in such circumstances?The only avenue open to them at the moment is for there to be a voluntary stock transfer of estates such as the Sands from ownership by the local authority to a housing association. That is fine, and I have no ideological hang-ups about it—my constituents who are in housing need could not, in the end, give tuppence about who the landlord of their property is. All they want is to know whether their properties will be improved.

I wish to make a point to the Minister that is neither ideological nor party political. It is far from satisfactory when the only option open to people in estates such as the one to which I have referred is to transfer ownership of the entire estate from one sector to another. Surely it would be better to put in place a funding mechanism not dissimilar to those that the Government have put in place in the past few years to provide some kind of home for people in such housing need.

Acute housing need is, without doubt, the greatest problem faced by millions of our fellow citizens. In 1996, it cannot possibly be right for 1.5 million people to be living in properties that the Government accept are unfit for human habitation. The House does not have the opportunity to debate issues such as housing anywhere near often enough, and I am grateful to the Select Committee and its Chairman for providing us with the opportunity to debate the issue tonight.

7.13 pm

Mr. Roy Thomason (Bromsgrove)

First, I declare an interest as a consultant to a building society and to a firm of solicitors, both of which inevitably have property matters relevant to their activities, although neither of them, nor any client of the solicitors, has invited me to express an opinion in the debate.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss housing as a major issue and, in particular, the Select Committee report. Housing is and always will remain at the forefront of political debate, and policies related to it are deeply contentious and go to the core of social division and the distribution of wealth. The Select Committee was probably extremely courageous to take on this subject, and it is a tribute to the co-operation of all members of the Committee that the report has received almost unanimous endorsement. I hope that cross-party co-operation within the Environment Select Committee will continue despite a temporary setback.

After the provision of food, shelter for oneself and one's family is the most vital human need. It is estimated that the average cost of housing is now about 15 per cent. of disposable income. There has been a sharp increase in that figure in the past few years, but that is reflective of the sacrifices that people are prepared to make to acquire the home of their choice.

The first issue to address in a debate of this kind is the definition of housing need itself. Is it limited to those who simply want a better home? That would certainly be reflected by the expression "housing demand", but "need" goes to a narrower definition. The Committee chose not to be limited to the other extreme—those totally lacking any dwelling at all—as that would have been far too narrow. However, there are clearly individuals or families living in overcrowded conditions, lacking basic amenities or with no reasonable home available at all, and it is they who can be said to have a housing need.

There are difficulties even on the margin of that definition, particularly those who are sharing with their parents. Sometimes the space will be adequate and the amenities satisfactory, but they will still want a home of their own, which they may have difficulty in achieving. The key additional component is, therefore, that they also cannot afford a market price, whether to rent or to buy. Inevitably, that led the report to concentrate on social housing, rather than exclusively on owner-occupation.

In considering the number of additional units that may be required, it is necessary to look at the historic position. There are clearly large numbers of people currently seeking alternative accommodation, many of whom may rightly claim a need. Should the estimated future provision required take into account that backlog, or simply address the numbers year to year, that is, keep pace but not reduce the backlog? In part, the historic backlog is also dependent upon estimating the numbers of those who live in sub-standard housing—a difficult estimate, compounded by some who do not want to move. We have heard examples of that from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick).

The next issue to consider is the expected level of owner-occupation. If owner-occupation is to increase as a proportion of the stock—as it has done substantially in the past two decades—less provision will be required for new household formations in the social housing sector. Conversely, fewer buyers will lead to a greater requirement for social housing. Most of us, myself included, tend to support the Government's argument that the total number of owner-occupied households is likely to rise by about 3 per cent. in the next few years to a total around, or just exceeding, 70 per cent. That takes account of those who wish to move into owner-occupation, either from adequate rented accommodation or on new household formation, coupled with right-to-buy applicants.

The right to buy remains a substantial force, and applications remain considerable. Against this figure, we must take into account those falling out of owner-occupation, particularly through repossession. The number of repossessions has fallen since the peak in the early 1990s caused by difficulties within the property market. The rise in house prices in recent months—particularly since our report was published—suggests that negative equity may be increasingly something of the past. However., it would not be unreasonable to assume that there will still be a number of repossessions, even if that is below current figures. In addition, demolition of sub-standard stock that is currently owner-occupied will have some impact on the figures.

The next factor we had to consider in calculating owner-occupation numbers relates to changes in tenure caused by social adjustments. Thus, as people live longer, there will be a tendency for them to move into sheltered accommodation or residential care from traditional owner-occupation.

The figure for owner-occupation, showing a small but still significant increase, takes into account all those factors. Thus there remains a strong determination among people generally to own their own homes. All the indications show that at least 80 per cent. of the population would like to be home owners, even if some, for financial or other reasons, will not be able to achieve it. Despite the temporary unpopularity of home ownership caused by falling property prices, there is no real indication that there has been a shift in people's desire to own their own home—the concept that the Englishman's home is his castle and the ambition to be its owner remain dear to our national psyche, and they appear to be almost as strongly held in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Another important aspect of social change that we had to consider was the desire of young people to set up home more quickly than has been traditional. Many of us did not feel that it was appropriate for public resources to be devoted to the provision of homes for young people the moment they cease to be schoolchildren. They may have some need to establish themselves, but scarce public funds should not be made available to provide homes in those circumstances.

The exception must be particularly vulnerable youngsters, such as those leaving local authority care and others in similar circumstances. I was impressed by one scheme based in London which was making provision for young people in this situation. However, as a general rule, it is clear that while the earlier maturity of young people will create additional housing pressures, we should not expect them in general to be accommodated in social housing subsidised by the taxpayer or by fellow tenants. They will have an impact on household formation numbers, but they should not generally lead to increasing social housing demand.

As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned, the Government estimate that up to the year 2001 there will be an annual need for between 60,000 and 100,000 units of social housing. The Government believe that a target figure towards the lower end of that range would be appropriate as slight under-provision will create demand for private rented accommodation and lead to more investment in housing for rent. The Government have estimated the figures on the basis that the number of households in England will rise by 4.4 million over the next 20 years as a result of factors such as increased life expectancy, higher net immigration, changes in marital status and co-habitation, and general growth in the, rate at which people form independent households.

We received other estimates of the number of social housing units that will required. Most were in the range of 60,000 to 100,000 units, with 120,000 probably being the largest. The Government are therefore talking of pitching the figure towards the lower end of their range, somewhere below what is considered by most observers to be the likely need, but they are not that far out, particularly if they are correct in their expectation that there will be new investment in housing. Indeed, that could ensure that the gap is made up.

That new investment, therefore, will be critical to the equation. It is imperative that housing investment trusts are a success and that private sector capital is introduced into the letting market. Some units will not be suitable for people who are able to afford only social housing rents—with or without housing benefit—but it is clear that the attraction of public sector investment in the lower range of private rented accommodation will be a vital component if pressures are not to build to an unacceptable level.

I am convinced that the Government are right in believing that that can be achieved, but they will need to monitor developments in the field closely and be prepared to step in to encourage more private investment if it appears to be failing to make up the anticipated substantial supplement to the social housing stock that is required. Flexibility is therefore important, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to assure us later that he will continue to keep the position under review.

Little can be said about housing generally and housing need in particular without referring to planning implications. Whether provision is for social housing or for owner-occupied housing, land must be found. I represent a constituency that is particularly sensitive to development proposals. We are bordered by the west midlands conurbation and our neighbours are Solihull, Birmingham and Dudley. To the south lies the expanding town of Redditch, and Kidderminster, which has grown substantially in recent years, is not far away.

With major transport links running through the constituency, the Bromsgrove area has become a particularly popular place in which to live. Part of its popularity, as with so many other similar places, is its semi-rural nature. If we allow further development within the green belt, which covers most of the constituency, that attractive quality will be lost. This view is not simply driven by the short-term and selfish attitude of those who wish to protect their own position—the NIMBY principle—but is more about retaining green lungs around our cities and ensuring that we do not have long and continuously developed corridors of development stretching out across the countryside so that for many city dwellers a view of a field becomes a rarity.

We must ensure that our planning policies are designed to retain open areas around our cities. If that is to be achieved, it follows that there will be continuing pressure on land available for development. I therefore particularly welcome the Government's determination to ensure that 50 per cent. of new development will take place on brown-field sites. The target is not terribly ambitious, however, as the Select Committee discovered, for existing levels of development are not far from that already—itself a point worth noting.

I hope that Government planning policies will move increasingly towards the encouragement of more development on brown-field sites. I should like to see a target set of 60 per cent. instead of 50 per cent. by not much past the turn of the century. We need to introduce new life into our cities to ensure the redevelopment of derelict and contaminated land. These are not cheap and easy sites to develop. Any developer knows that a green-field site is cheaper to build on and easier to sell. If planning is about ensuring that we have a reasonable way of life and protecting our environment, this issue must be addressed and we must improve the urban landscape as well as the rural one.

It was fascinating that in the course of our inquiries we discovered evidence to suggest that the creation of new housing is leading to greater demand. Simply put, the more houses that are built, the more people are prepared to occupy them. Thus, early household formation may be encouraged by more property being available to buy or to let. If that scenario is true, and it is a fascinating one, it is a powerful argument to suggest that there should be restrictions on new development.

Mr. Bennett

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that much of the evidence vigorously denied that proposition?

Mr. Thomason

I agree that the point was subject to much dispute, but it is worth drawing it out in the debate.

It was an interesting and fairly innovative point that, rather like building roads, the more that is done the more demand is created. I have some doubt about the validity of that evidence and of the argument put to us, but more thought needs to be given to the point and I hope that the Government will research it in the future.

It is important in planning terms to differentiate between affordable—and therefore social—housing, and that built for the private sector. Density requirements imposed by planning authorities will tend to encourage the development of low-cost homes, but planning knows no distinction between social and other housing. I am sure that that is right. I would be concerned that the creation of a special planning use categorised as for social housing purposes would lead to the construction of ghettos, rather in the manner of the huge council estates that were developed in the 1950s and 1960s. Much more should we see a mixture of housing in low-cost developments, with planning authorities using their powers to impose conditions to direct that a proportion of new developments should contain social housing.

We cannot reasonably differentiate between local authority, housing association and private sector accommodation. What really makes a property a social one is whether it is affordable. We still have no clear definition of what affordable means. Indeed, the whole of this debate is surrounded by terms that are extremely difficult to define. Clearly, however, affordable tends to suggest that it is within the reach of the vast majority of the population.

I hope that the private sector will be increasingly able to respond to the need for affordable rented accommodation so that the trend may be away from bricks and mortar subsidy and towards subsidy of the individual through the housing benefit system. The cost of housing benefit will be a constraint on that policy, but I am sure that ultimately it is the right objective; in that respect, I disagree with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish.

I welcome the Government's initiative to create housing investment trusts, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration will say something about those in his closing remarks.

The Select Committee report has made an important contribution to a vital debate which will continue, inside and outside the Chamber, for many years to come. I commend the report to the House for consideration, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to participate in the debate.

7.29 pm

Mrs. Diana Maddock (Christchurch)

Like other hon. Members, I am pleased that we are holding this debate. Seven days ago, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) described this time of the week—7 o'clock to 10 o'clock on a Thursday—as "the black hole" of the parliamentary week, but we have attracted a number of right hon. and hon. Members to the Chamber today because this is an important issue.

I am afraid that I do not entirely agree with the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) that housing is at the front of political debate. Part of our problem is that it is not far enough toward the front of political debate. That is why I warmly welcome the work done by the Environment Select Committee and the opportunity that it has given us to debate housing need today.

Like many hon. Members in the Chamber tonight, I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Housing Bill earlier this year, and I know too well how knowledgeable the Chairman of the Environment Select Committee, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), is, and how passionate he is about housing—something that I believe goes for quite a few of us present tonight.

In such a debate, it is easy to get bogged down in figures as we discuss whether we need 60,000, 90,000 or 150,000 more social homes a year. I share the view expressed by many organisations working in housing—such as Shelter, the National Federation of Housing Associations and the Chartered Institute of Housing—that the bottom line is that the Government's estimate is inadequate. Even if the figure of 60,000 to 100,000 a year proposed by the Government were correct, it would be sensible to aim for the upper end of that scale, or at least the middle, rather than the bottom end. After all, even members of the Government admit that estimation is an imprecise art.

As has been said, not only people without homes have need. I am pleased that the Select Committee paid close attention to hidden housing need, and I am pleased that it paid special attention to the work of Alan Holmans, a former chief housing economist at the Department of the Environment.

A huge number of people live in homes that are unfit to be lived in. The most recent housing condition surveys show that 2.5 million homes are unfit or in need of substantial repair, and 5 million people live in them. Those figures are frightening, but hon. Members arid the Government should study another figure—that of the country's bill for treating medical conditions caused by sub-standard housing. In a recent Committee, medical experts estimated that it might be as much as £2.4 billion a year. That figure represents only health spending. It does not take account of how illness caused by bad housing affects attendance at work or school, or increases the uptake of social security benefits. I fear that, in years to come, we may look back on the abolition of mandatory renovation grants and realise how much damage we have done and how much it will cost us in future, especially in health spending.

So many of our problems stem from the fact that, in many ways, we have not engaged in sufficient long-term thinking when considering how to provide housing. Investment has been cut year on year. There has been a lack of long-term thinking, not only at a macro level, but at a micro level. That was emphasised to some of us this year during the passage of the Housing Bill, when we realised that, as a result of the Bill, homeless people would be unable to find stability.

It is traumatic to lose one's home. It may be an eviction or a repossession, and it may have resulted from the loss of a job. Whatever the circumstances, the last thing that people need then is insecurity and short-termism, with short-term contracts, often in the private rented sector, making it impossible for them to be certain where they will be a couple of years later.

Many of those people are unable to afford even the top end of the middle of the private rented market, especially following recent housing benefit changes. They therefore end up in badly kept, often ramshackle, properties, and often they find it difficult to cope with the situation. The history of the experiences that brought them there often makes them feel unable to challenge their landlord about some of the factors that affect the condition of the property.

Mr. Thomason

I listened to the hon. Lady's remarks about housing benefit. Is she saying that more housing benefit should be made available to tenants?

Mrs. Maddock

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I put it as one of the problems of the rented sector. There is a problem with housing benefit. Many of us believed that it would be useful to subsidise the individual when it came to housing, but that has not worked. We have an enormous housing benefit bill, and many of us are considering ways in which to cut the benefit bill while ensuring that people have security in their homes. The issue is security rather than the level of benefit. Perhaps we should be considering more investment in bricks and mortar, because obviously we have a problem.

I want housing benefit to be a safety net that enables people to stay in their homes. If we were to drop housing benefit suddenly, as some proposals emanating from the Government suggest, it would not help. People would end up in housing need because they had been turned out of their property. Our challenge is to get the equation right. How do we set a benefit level that promotes better conditions in the private sector, gives people a decent safety net and encourages investment in properties? I did not intend to have a long discussion about housing benefit, but it is a key factor.

The private rented sector has an important part to play. It has grown in recent years, but not as much as the Government would have us believe. Our housing market is far more polarised than that of any other country. We have an enormous number of people in home ownership—nearly 70 per cent. of the population—and a much lower percentage living in the private rented sector. In France, 20 per cent. of the population live in the private rented sector, in Germany, 43 per cent. and in Switzerland no less than 66 per cent. Part of the reason is that private rented accommodation is subsidised differently in those countries. All political parties have been studying the way in which other countries deal with those matters.

Other hon. Members have spoken of the way in which people regard the property that they live in—whether it is important that they own rather than rent it, to make them feel that they want to look after it, that it is important and that they have a stake in it, to use that popular phrase. The experience of other countries shows that people do not need to own their property to feel that they have a stake in it. They do, however, need to feel that they have some control over their immediate environment and what goes on in their house. It has been shown in many authorities throughout the country that that can happen whether people own or rent their property. The idea is clearly possible, given the experience of other countries.

To meet housing need, we must be more flexible not only on tenures but on providing different types of housing. The Environment Select Committee discussed demographic changes. My constituency has the fifth highest proportion of pensioners in the country, so I shall dwell for a moment on how we should deal with housing for an aging population. In 15 years' time, a further 300,000 home owners will be over the age of 80. Where will they be housed and what type of homes will they need? Will they be able to stay in their present homes? Those questions will be among the most important housing questions over the next two or three decades.

We need to know how many elderly people will wish to live independently and how many will need sheltered housing or residential care. We must ensure that we meet the needs of the elderly across the range of accommodation. I am pleased that the Government have withdrawn their proposal to cut eligibility of service charges in housing benefit and have decided to set up a full review of the matter. Without such benefit, many vulnerable people could not afford to stay in their homes because they could not pay the charges to wardens or others who help them. Many people may have needed to go into institutions rather than stay in their homes. We must have a middle option and I welcome the fact that the Government have listened to my representations and those from relevant organisations.

The majority of people want to stay in their homes when they get old. A recent MORI poll for Anchor Housing showed that two thirds of home owners wished to stay where they were rather than move. The majority of those who wanted to move said that it was because their accommodation was too big for them and that they would prefer something smaller because, for example, it would be easier to heat. That shows that we need more homes that can be adapted. Creating so-called "lifetime homes" will be an important part of meeting need in that sector in the future.

I add my voice to those calling for the incorporation of those criteria into part M of the building regulations. The cost of building accessibility features into homes from the outset is small compared with the cost of incorporating them later. Our thinking must be long term. Elderly people are often put off having their homes adapted because they would not be able to stand the upheaval. The attempt by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) to amend the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill was not as successful as we should have liked. I hope that Ministers will eventually see the light and adopt a more far-sighted approach to accessible housing.

The debate on long-term care touches slightly different areas of housing, and we do not have time to deal with that tonight.

Mr. Stephen

The hon. Lady has identified a number of problems, but what is the Liberal Democrat policy for solving them? The document entitled, "Towards 1996", prepared in her Whips Office, says: Our intention to phase out MIRAS will cripple mortgage payers and exacerbate negative equity. Our policy on freeing up council house sales receipts no longer stands up, being a little bit dated. We are still not sure what we would do about housing benefit. Our policy on helping home owners suffering from negative equity is expensive and ill thought out. What are the Liberal Democrats' policies on MIRAS, council house sales, housing benefit and negative equity?

Mrs. Maddock

We always get the old chestnuts. I thought that people had got to the bottom of this, but I shall explain once again. The document from which the hon. Gentleman quotes was used internally to make us think about those questions. Interestingly, when we were discussing the matter someone said that they wondered what Conservative Members would say if they got hold of the document. I regret to say that the document was somehow purloined, although we tried to keep it to ourselves. It was a discussion document.

Mr. Nick Raynsford (Greenwich)

The hon. Lady is a teenage scribbler.

Mrs. Maddock

The hon. Gentleman disappoints me. He does not usually descend to that level of debate. We shall produce a policy document in the future.

Before I gave way, I was about to ask how we can progress towards meeting housing needs and produce good-quality housing that people can afford to stay in, even if times get tough. I shall devote the rest of my speech to that and deal with the matters raised by the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen).

We must help people to stay in their homes and tackle need before it becomes desperate. The Liberal Democrats propose a mortgage benefit, which would be paid for by phasing out mortgage income tax relief. We would not phase in mortgage benefit overnight as the Government would, because that is not fair on people who have made long-term financial plans. Such a scheme has been part of our policy for a long time.

The Government's attempts to help people who lose their jobs not to lose their homes have not been successful. Insurance is sensible and I would encourage people to cover themselves as much as possible, but research shows that huge numbers of people could not get insurance cover—at least two or three have come to my Saturday morning surgeries. Part-time workers, those with temporary contracts, the self-employed or people approaching retirement age are denied such insurance cover. Increasing numbers of people are experiencing job insecurity, so we must tackle that problem.

Many people cannot move to a room in the private rented sector, not because of high rents—although those affect some people—but because of the deposit that is required. Many local authorities and charities have set up good rent deposit schemes, which lend deposit money to people who cannot find it. The Environment Select Committee looked into the problem of deposits, and we must consider the matter further. As tenants cannot get their deposits back, they sometimes leave the property without paying the last month's rent. That is a ridiculous way to carry on. We need to put in place a system that does away with rental deposits. Australia has a scheme that takes care of all the deposits. A proposal to solve the problem was made in the Committee considering the Housing Bill, although it was not ideal. The problem must be solved if we are to have a thriving private rented sector.

We must make better use of our property resources by discouraging under-occupation, ensuring that empty properties are used as homes, using brown-field sites, and accommodating people in shops and offices in town centres. Clearly, we cannot spread across the countryside. An important question for people who live in rural areas is what will happen under the right-to-buy proposal in the latest Housing Bill. Where will people in rural areas replace the social units that may be lost through that scheme, and how will social housing units in rural areas be replaced?

There has been a lot of agreement around the Chamber tonight—I say "around the Chamber" because I think that far too often we talk about this side and that side. There was also agreement around the Chamber during the passage of the Housing Bill and the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill. It was agreed that there is unmet housing need, but there was disagreement about the level. One of the problems is that the Government are always on the lower end of everything, not the top end—although they do not always have to be at the top end. The Select Committee believes that the Government are hitting far too low.

Mr. Thomason

The hon. Lady's assessment of the situation assumes that there will be no private sector investment in rented accommodation. Does she feel that there is no contribution to be made by the private sector?

Mrs. Maddock

I did not realise that I was being incoherent. I have been talking at some length about the private rented sector and about how important it is. I believe that it should exist and that we should do things to enable people to get into it. As a party, in the past we have supported various tax benefits and schemes to enable people to rent properties out and to make renting much more of a business.

Mr. Thomason

rose—

Mrs. Maddock

I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman because I want to progress. I have said quite a lot about the private rented sector, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to know more, I can recommend quite a lot of our documents to him and he can read them at his leisure. If he orders them and pays for them at Cowley street, they will be the genuine thing—they will have been passed by our members at our party conferences.

There is agreement about better use of sites and better use of buildings, but there is not agreement about how much investment we should put into it. Over the years, Governments have encouraged local authorities and everyone else to use sites and to bring properties back, and they have set up wonderful schemes that go for only a year and are then changed. I would like to see some long-term thinking in this regard.

Most hon. Members agree that we need to plan for demographic change, but the question is how much and for how long. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said that he was disappointed that we were not looking ahead to 2011 and 2021 in relation to housing need. That is not easy to do, but we should be looking at it and making estimates. If we can encourage people to look that far ahead, they might focus on the short term as well.

It is agreed that we need flexibility—people need to be able to move in and out of the private sector. However, there is not always agreement on how that should be done. We also need investment, and I am not sure where the Government stand on this. The Government always ask the Opposition where they are going to get investment from, but they do not say where their investment will come from.

We need to use the money that is locked up in councils in capital receipts but, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said, that will not solve all the problems. To get more money into housing, we need to recognise that putting capital into bricks and mortar is a good investment. If we continue to account in a way that means that, every year, we have to hit the public sector borrowing requirement, which does not separate capital and revenue, we shall be in this mess for ever. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman recognises that, I know that other Labour Members recognise it, and I hope that we can convince other hon. Members of the need for it. Studies have shown that that will bring more money into housing—not just public money but private money. We all want to see that happen.

There is disagreement about how we should deal with those matters, and about who should deal with them. I believe in local control. I recognise that the Government have put a lot of time and money into schemes that hon. Members have talked about tonight. In my role as the Liberal Democrat spokesman on housing, I try to get out and see what is happening in the country. I know that there are good regeneration schemes—there just are not enough. As we have heard, the schemes that are in place are good but so many other people need their homes to be improved.

Local authorities are in the best position to know what they need in their area. I would like the Government to keep a less tight rein on who will get the money and enable local councils to invest in their areas. During the debate on the recent housing legislation, we spoke about the need to allow local authorities to get private money. If they know what the need is, and if there are regulations to ensure that that spending does not go through the roof, we shall get more sensible investment and some of the severe need will be met.

A home is the key anchor for successful individuals and families, and that is why we cannot afford to keep missing the target when it comes to meeting housing need. There is evidence that Europe and Scandinavia—I have lived in Sweden—invest more than the United Kingdom. We have to invest more. Successful individuals and families mean successful businesses and communities, and that means a successful country.

My greatest sorrow is that this year we had the opportunity to move forward on this when we debated the two housing Bills. I regret that, although there were some improvements in some areas, we have moved the goalposts—we did not create any more units to meet the need that we are discussing tonight. Until we can all come to an agreement about that, we shall come back here and carp about unmet housing need.

7.56 pm

Mr. Harold Elletson (Blackpool, North)

I am grateful to the Government for finding time for us to have this important debate on housing need. The Environment Select Committee's report on the subject was the result of a major inquiry into an important matter of social and environmental concern. It is good that we now have the opportunity for a wider debate on the Floor of the House. I welcome the chance to discuss the work of Select Committees in this way.

The Environment Select Committee's report examined the way in which the Government assess future housing need and prepare themselves to meet the challenge of housing the nation within the framework of the planning system and their overall environmental objectives. I shall focus on meeting housing need and its impact on the countryside. Housing policy has to be seen very much within the wider environmental context. New housing development is responsible for a greater loss of countryside than any other single factor. Hon. Members would agree that new housing seems to upset constituents more than any other local environmental issue.

Britain has undergone, and is still undergoing, profound social and demographic changes, which are bound to have a significant effect on housing in the future. Every reliable survey indicates that the population and the number of households are growing. There is bound to be a consequent need for new homes—particularly for affordable new homes. The Government have to assess the likely need for social housing in the future, and to ensure that their planning policies take account of that and of increased demand in the private sector for new homes.

In the past, the Department of the Environment and local authorities have sought to make this sort of estimate, mainly on the basis of household projections. However, household projections are notoriously unreliable and difficult. Indeed, several of the Environment Select Committee's witnesses questioned whether household projections were the best basis on which to assess either the need for social housing at the national level or the requirements for additional housing land at the local level. They were right to question that—after all, household projections are not sensitive to local conditions or to the environmental implications of current planning policies. The use of household projections as a method of estimate fails to assess the nature rather than the numbers of housing need, especially the need for housing geared to specific needs. This is clearly a major problem at a time of such enormous demographic change, particularly with the growth of the elderly population.

Housing projections have been, and are, used to define the scale of overall housing requirements. They dominate the preparation of regional planning guidance and development plans. However, they are not policy neutral: they are the major tool used by the building lobby to bludgeon the Government into releasing more land for development. We need to base our housing requirements and policies on a wider set of objectives than demographics and a highly contentious and unreliable system of projections.

Therefore, I warmly welcome the Environment Committee's recommendation that the Government and local authorities should attach much more importance to local environmental concerns, and much less importance to statistical projections of household formation when deciding upon building levels. The importance of that recommendation cannot be underestimated.

There is massive pressure for new housing development on green-field sites in the countryside, on the edges of towns and villages, and on every available strip of open land. That pressure is widely resented by people all over the country, whether they live in towns or in the countryside. They realise that, left unchecked, it would swamp rural England and destroy our countryside heritage.

We have a magnificent rural heritage. Last summer, I walked across the north of England from Scarborough, up the coast to Whitby and down to Blackpool. I know that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), the Chairman of the Environment Committee, is also a keen walker. Anyone who goes into the countryside and sees what a magnificent place England is—particularly the north—will realise what a great heritage we have to pass on to our children. That, more than anything else, is the jewel of our national heritage, and we must treasure it.

However, every year we lose 11,000 hectares of countryside to urban development—most of which is new housing. A recent report in The Daily Telegraph claimed that unpublished Government research predicted that an area of rural land the size of greater London would be urbanised by 2016 at a rate of development one third higher than that experienced in the 1980s, during a peak period of private sector housebuilding. By 2016, there may be as many as 4 million new households in England if current demographic trends continue.

We have not begun to pay enough attention to the consequences of simply building houses to meet those trends. Those consequences are horrifying. If current rates of development continue, 20 per cent. of England will be urban by 2050. That would be a terrible legacy for our children. It would be an environmental nightmare and a betrayal of the greatest treasure in our children's inheritance: England itself.

That would also be utterly pointless, because, while demographic trends are bound to create a strain, there is no need to try to solve the problem by releasing more countryside for building. Much more can be done to meet housing needs from the existing stock of buildings. The vast bulk of future housing provision already exists, and new development adds only about 1 per cent. to existing stock each year. There is significant under-use of the existing housing stock. During the Committee's inquiry, I realised that little research has been done in that area. However, it is clear that almost 800,000 homes are currently empty.

Therefore, a widespread programme of new housebuilding, coupled with the relaxation of planning controls, would clearly be an absolute disaster. We must respond to the challenge of meeting future housing needs in ways other than simply taking account of statistical projections. We must attach more importance to local environmental concerns, such as those expressed by the residents of Cleveleys on the edge of my constituency. They are objecting to the development of open farmland on College farm between Cleveleys and Fleetwood. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will look carefully at that matter when he receives the residents' representations.

We must encourage local authorities to prepare local planning strategies that are based on the capacity of their environment to accommodate new development, rather than simply imagining that the countryside is a renewable resource which can be squandered at will to meet the demands of the building industry. Against that background, it is clear that the Government will have to plan for a significant increase in the demand for social housing.

The Environment Committee report is correct to highlight that aspect, and to stress the need to plan much more carefully for special housing needs. The members of the Committee were unanimous in the view that the Government must provide more social housing if we are to meet future needs.

The Government have already done much to provide affordable homes for families on low incomes. They spent £5 billion on grants for social housing in 1994–95. That enables 300,000 families to find homes in the social rented sector each year, and has provided an extra 72,000 affordable homes on average in each of the past three years. That is an impressive record, upon which the Government must build. Much of the demand can be met through the better use of existing sites, and the Environment Committee recommended increasing the share of new development in towns and cities.

I mentioned that about 800,000 homes are currently empty. Of those, 700,000 are in the private sector. The Government are committed to reducing the number of empty homes in England from 4 to 3 per cent. They have encouraged people to make use of empty homes and dwelling places through measures such as removing the need for planning permission when converting space above shops into housing; by encouraging the conversion of older offices into flats: by making it easier for, and more attractive to, people to become landlords; and by creating the conditions for a healthy housing market so that empty homes can be sold.

The Government are also disposing of surplus accommodation among their empty stock. In 1994–95, nearly 4,000 homes were brought back into use or resold. They have gradually made it more attractive for landlords to let empty properties. Most importantly, the Government are trying to encourage the construction of houses on urban, as opposed to rural, sites. Last year's housing White Paper set a target that 50 per cent. of new houses should be built on land previously in urban use. I understand that that target is being met, but I do not think that it goes far enough.

That was also the Environment Committee's view: we concluded that every effort must be made to increase the scale of re-use of brown-field sites that had been built on previously. The report says that the 50 per cent. target can be met and improved in the future. I hope that the Minister will take the recommendation particularly seriously, because that aim is realisable and will help to take pressure off the countryside.

A wider question, which the Environment Committee has addressed in previous inquiries—particularly in its examination of out-of-town shopping—is the quality of life in our inner cities and towns. It is not enough to respond to the challenge by developing brown-field sites—and I am sure that the Government will not respond in that way. As a nation and as a Government, we must do a great deal more to improve the quality of life in the urban environments in our towns and cities.

We cannot underestimate the challenge that faces us as we approach the 21st century. For many people, inner-city areas and towns are empty, desolate places of despair. Many towns in this country have been effectively abandoned. I believe that that is the great challenge facing the Government and the Department as we approach the 21st century.

The Committee has travelled to other parts of the world, including other countries in the European Community, for previous inquiries. Members of the Committee have seen some imaginative responses to the challenges of urban planning, which have encouraged people back to town centres and made them attractive, pleasant places in which to live and work. Some towns in this country that have good, well-run local authorities have gone a long way to meeting that challenge; other towns are an absolute disgrace. As a nation, that must be our top priority. I know that the Minister is extremely concerned about that, and I hope that it is a matter to which the Environment Committee will turn its attention in future.

8.9 pm

Mrs. Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

I want to place on record my appreciation of the Select Committee's important work on housing. The Department of the Environment has such a huge variety of work that it was good for the Select Committee to concentrate on an issue such as housing, which is so central to our constituency concerns. In particular, as has become apparent in the debate, the work of our Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), was much appreciated by all concerned.

When our inquiry began, it appeared to be dominated by statistics and the need to determine whether the Government's statistics or those of the former Government adviser, Alan Holmans, in his research for the Joseph Rowntree trust, whose figures suggested that the Government's were too low, were more applicable. However, as the inquiry progressed, it became obvious that figures of housing demand and need are really people—old and young, families and households—and figures of housing supply. are really homes—homes in good and bad condition, new homes, old homes and flats in different areas.

Beyond those two statistics was another figure which perhaps we did not touch on enough, but which needs to be mentioned, and that is the number of people for whom the housing industry provides a livelihood in terms of jobs and training, including the professionals—architects, designers and surveyors.

It becomes clear that, when a country finds the right balance between housing need in the form of people and housing supply in the form of homes, the result is—the most important factor of all—stable communities benefiting from independence and self-esteem. As people move through life, from youth, to having families, to old age, housing is probably the most important factor in their lives.

Therefore, it is important that the Government should take seriously the Committee's core recommendation outlined in paragraphs 251 and 252 of its report. It says: the Government's estimate of the need for social housing is below all the estimates produced by respected organisations and academics. Therefore, the Select Committee came to the conclusion that it would only be prudent for the Government to assume that in determining policy, including the allocation of public expenditure over the next few years, it ought to provide for a figure at a higher point of its present estimated range". I want to touch on the various groups and practical issues which emerged from the Select Committee's approach. We need to ensure that, by housing need, we mean people. I welcome the element of the Government's response, which suggests that they will undertake further research into the demographic implications of the different groups of people that make up housing demand and need.

The briefing for today's debate from the Anchor housing association states that, by the year 2011, an additional 300,000 people over the age of 80 will require housing. At present, pensioners comprise one third of all households, and the majority of those are in rented accommodation, so what older people will need in the next decade or two is fundamental to our consideration.

I think of Mrs. Hulbert, whom I visited at the weekend on her 100th birthday, who looked no older than 81 or 82. She lives on her own in a small terraced house in my constituency, fairly independently. Such independence, with some support where needed, is a factor which should be at the top of all hon. Members' agendas.

It also emerged from the evidence of some housing associations that, although people are living longer, the period during which they are severely disabled and so need adaptations is not necessarily getting longer. During the next 10 or 20 years, older people will increasingly want their independence of living. Moreover, current trends of increasing separation and divorce, which I deplore, will increase the need and demand among older people in society for independent living.

Most Members of Parliament will have experienced distressing cases where a local authority has told an elderly couple in an inflexible way that the only dwelling to which they are entitled is a bed-sitter or a one-bedroomed bungalow. When first faced with such a situation, it is difficult to ascertain what the problem is. Then it emerges that they have not slept in the same room for many years. For such people to be told that they are entitled only to a one-bedroomed house because they are elderly, a pensioner or slightly disabled is not a satisfactory way in which to meet their needs.

The same care is required when addressing the housing need's of younger people. I was disappointed at the Government's response to the Committee's recommendations for younger people. We saw some excellent examples of vulnerable younger people being given the opportunity of independence in rented accommodation, and the effect of that on their rehabilitation in society.

Mr. Stephen

The hon. Lady will remember our visit to the young people's accommodation. However, did she not share my concern that the young people seemed to have little incentive eventually to leave that accommodation and stand on their own feet? The impression seemed to be conveyed to them that it was all right to stay there, playing the guitar, doing their painting or whatever they were doing, as long as they liked.

Mrs. Jackson

I remember that the young person who spent a lot of time painting did not have another job, but he was, to all intents and purposes, working hard at achieving the most important thing that he wanted to do in his life, which he would not have been able to do without independent accommodation that he could feel was his and which gave him the space and opportunity to do it.

Let us move on from individual cases to think about most younger people and the importance to them—certainly the younger people I have known from my family and friends—of their move into independent accommodation. The idea that any bar should be placed on opportunities for younger people to take the chance to move away from their parents and set up home independently is very retrogressive, so I am not happy about the Government's response, in which they seem to say that they do not accept that younger people—even young adults who share a home with friends or families and say that they would rather live in separate accommodation—can be considered to be in housing need.

Moving on from younger people as they move through life, the other point raised by Alan Holmans, which the Government need to address seriously, is the trend for young people—particularly young professional people who feel that they might need to move away to follow their profession—to move into rented accommodation for a longer time rather than become owner-occupiers, and all the signs in the housing market at present are that that trend will continue. Owner-occupation is no longer seen as a financial investment for young couples, who would rather move into a house where they know that they have the flexibility to move in or out of the area when they want.

That takes us further through life, to families. We cannot underestimate the effect that the trend of single families, single dwellers, people who have separated, will place on housing need and demand. It is quite unacceptable that people in unhappy situations together should, because of pressure of housing, find it impossible to get out and live separately.

Adequate provision of housing to meet demand is a matter not just of housing policy but of social policy. It is a matter of supporting, at each stage in their lives, people who are vulnerable and who need that extra independence.

Before I finish, I shall say a little about the other side of our inquiry—housing supply. Our report said many useful things about house design and the condition of housing, and those points were touched on by many Conservative Members. I enjoyed the speech of the hon.Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) about his recollections of the Kelvin housing estate in Sheffield, which has come and gone.

Adequate design and condition are part and parcel of the provision of adequate housing. I was not privileged to be a member of the Committee that considered the Housing Bill this Session, but I was a member of the Committee that considered the Housing Grants' Construction and Regeneration Bill, which made some interesting points about unfit housing—a matter that the Select Committee felt important—where renovation was required to bring the properties up to standard.

The concern that Opposition Members feel about the long-term effect of changing mandatory grants to discretionary grants will return to haunt the housing industry. The change will not put a penny more into renovation and the adequacy of house condition, particularly in the private rented sector.

Hon. Members who made points about void rates and vacant rates should remember that the void rate in the private sector is four times that in the public or housing association sector. If we really want to address the problem of using all the empty properties, we must address the issue of voids in the private sector.

I appreciated the comments by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), because my constituency, being on the edge of Sheffield, covers land that is in high demand for housing and of extra-high demand for housing developers, who press at every opportunity to build there rather than on the areas in and around the city of Sheffield, where there are industrial complexes that are genuine brown-field sites, on which it would be most appropriate for houses to be built. But for housing development to take place on those sites, extra resources need to be provided, through the single regeneration budget, estate action and a combination of housing associations, housing corporations and local authorities.

The Government should take steps to achieve a co-ordinated programme, not only to realise the 50 per cent. target for new housing on brown-field sites but to expand on that. However, it will require clear guidance to the planning authorities to ensure that planning guidance notes work in that direction as well.

I end by quoting two points, one of which came from the House Builders Federation; the other came from the general secretary of the builders' union. It is interesting that they totally agree. The House Builders Federation told our Committee: The main reason for today's housing shortage is that, during the 1980s, approximately 1 million too few houses were built in the social and private sectors to meet the needs of the growing numbers of households during the decade. In fact, contrary to popular myth, far fewer homes were built in that period than in any decade since the 1940s. The general secretary of the Union of Construction Allied Trades and Technicians made the point recently: Half a million building workers have lost their jobs since the recession in house building. Keeping these building workers idle will lose over £11 billion in potential national output. because it costs the Treasury an average of £9,000 in benefits per unemployed person". Many years ago, when I was at the campaigning stage of my political career, I was involved in the development of a campaign for homes and jobs, which centred on the fact that building workers are needed to build homes and the fact that homes give people security and independence. Most people want both those needs to be dealt with, and they should be the goal of any proper housing policy. That would make a big difference to society.

8.30 pm

Mr. Michael Stephen (Shoreham)

The Select Committee's inquiry into housing need was one of the most interesting and, I hope, useful that it has undertaken since I became a member in 1994. I pay tribute to the work of our Chairman, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)—not only in connection with the inquiry, but for the way in which he presides over our proceedings, with tact and humour, sometimes in difficult circumstances.

We must, at the outset, draw a clear distinction between housing need and housing demand. The fact that a person may want a house—or a bigger house, or another house—does not mean that he is in need. In paragraph 203 of our report, we spoke of the danger of acceding to housing demand rather than housing need. We noted that, in its consultation paper "Access to Local Authority and Housing Association Tenancies", the Department of the Environment had voiced apprehension about: 'the impact on the environment of an apparently insatiable demand for additional housing; future generations may not thank us if we continue to devote scarce national resources to producing ever more dwellings'. Obviously, if a person has no home at all or is living in accommodation that lacks basic amenities, the community as a whole has a responsibility to do something about it; but is the fact that someone does not get on with his parents, or the fact that a husband does not get on with his wife, a reason for saying that the rest of the community must bear the burden of providing him with a home? When we can do that, we should, but if the cost is building on green-field sites, we are faced with a delicate balance. On the one hand, there is demand—perhaps strong demand—for a house; on the other hand, is it right for the bulldozers to destroy a beautiful meadow that the forces of nature and the activities of man may have taken a hundred years to develop? Is it right for the bulldozers to destroy a piece of woodland that provides a habitat for wildlife, to meet housing demand? We need only pose that question to realise that the answer must be no.

Then we come to the "top-down versus bottom-up" argument, to which the Committee devoted considerable attention. Should we rely on national statistics, say, "Yes, these houses must be built," and then hand out to county councils and, through them, district councils the number of houses for which land must be provided? I think not. Paragraph 217 of our report says: Some witnesses expressed concern about the 'top-down' nature of the way that housing need is presently assessed; using national projections as a base and then extrapolating local targets from them, they argued, involved playing a sort of 'numbers game' at the local level which did not necessarily reflect local needs and conditions. A few paragraphs later, we say: Early in the inquiry the Committee attempted to obtain bottom-up estimates of housing requirements for each area in England, in order to compare the national total of such figures with national projections. We were told these figures were not available, that each set of local figures was arrived at in different ways. This proved to be the case. That is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.

As is explained in paragraph 222, We eventually received figures from the Department showing the provision for housing made in each local plan and in regional plans. These suggested that local plans are heavily influenced by the 'top-down' approach, an impression which was confirmed by written evidence which stressed both the extent to which local plan requirements were the outcome of negotiation within the regional figures and the primary importance of the Department of the Environment's household projections in determining those regional figures. I suggest that the Government's national projections are much too important a factor in the planning process, and that the capacity of individual localities to bear the strain in terms of cost, land availability and the environment may not be accorded the importance that it deserves.

In my county of Sussex, the environmental issue that concerns local people perhaps more than any other is the constant pressure on every little piece of open space for housing. In Rustington, in my constituency, a large tract of land has just become available because of the projected closure of the Horticultural Research Institute. The danger is that that site will be covered with houses. There may well be housing demand, but is it right for the site to be covered with houses when almost the entire coastal strip that comprises my constituency has, since the second world war, been built up to a point at which almost all the character of the small towns and villages that once existed has been destroyed? Fortunately, not all of it has been destroyed: in many parts of my constituency, it is still possible to catch a glimpse of what it was like before the builders arrived.

In the years since 1945, we in Britain have put far too many of our national resources into bricks and mortar—money that should, perhaps, have been invested in productive industry. We have, I think, employed too many of our people in building when they could perhaps have been employed in other jobs that would have contributed more to the country's ability to pay its way in the world. Fortunately, because of the economic policies that the Government have pursued since 1979, our economy is in better shape than ever before. We are now forging ahead in comparison with the French and the Germans. But we had a legacy to deal with—a long legacy of neglect and misdirected investment, which began with the Labour Government of 1945.

There are far too many empty houses. It may not be widely known that there are far more empty houses and flats than there are homeless families. I pay tribute to the work of the Empty Homes Agency, one of whose representatives we met during our inquiry. He took us to see empty Government, local authority and health authority housing. The amount of potentially usable housing that was simply lying empty—largely, from my recollection, because of the dead hand of bureaucracy—was scandalous. I am glad that the Government are now dealing with that—or, at least, that the Ministry of Defence is. I hope that other Departments will do the same, for, on this small, overcrowded island, we cannot afford to allow many houses to remain empty.

Nor can we afford to leave houses that could be used to house families lying empty because there is no money to refurbish them. Under the old system, mandatory grants meant that money was sometimes given to people who could well afford to renovate the houses themselves. However, I wonder whether we have the balance right today. Is the otherwise admirable policy of subsidising the individual rather than the bricks and mortar achieving our objective of ensuring that dilapidated houses are refurbished in a timely manner? Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister can develop the Government's thinking on that.

Many buildings in need of refurbishment are listed buildings. I have received many complaints that, in the discharge of their responsibilities, the listed building authorities have only one word in their vocabulary—no. Why cannot, for example, Victorian additions be removed and houses restored to how they were in the Georgian era or whenever they were built? Logically, that should be permitted, but all too often, perfectly sensible alteration or refurbishment to listed buildings is not permitted. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister can examine whether those powers need to be exercised more flexibly.

Brown-field sites have been mentioned several times—they are of immense importance. It is absurd, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) said, that green-field sites on the fringe of her constituency—many of which are beautiful, as the Committee saw when we visited the Peak district—should be built on when there is industrial dereliction in the centre of Sheffield that needs to be redeveloped. If permission were not granted for people to build on green-field sites on the fringe of Sheffield, they would have no alternative, if t0hey wanted to build in Sheffield at all, but to use brown-field sites. The planning system has a major role to play in promoting such development.

In some areas, we must accept that housing need, as opposed to demand, is so great that new housing must be built. Is the right way to meet that demand to expand existing villages and market towns, or is it better to build new villages or towns in places close to motorway junctions or railways, where proper infrastructure is available? Before I came to this place, I was a county councillor for a rural division of Essex called Dunmow, with which my right hon. Friend the Minister will be familiar from his days as a Member of the European Parliament.

The question arose whether additional houses should be provided for people who were going to work at Stansted airport, that big white elephant in the middle of Essex. I argued that if the airport operators wished to employ vast numbers people to serve their businesses, they should bear the cost. They should bus the people from the relatively nearby communities where they already lived and not expect the people of rural Essex, and of the nation, to bear the environmental burden of covering more and more meadows and woodlands with houses. Even worse, the character of Dunmow, an ancient town of 5,000 people, would be completely destroyed by the addition of the 900 houses that were proposed.

I managed to persuade my Conservative colleagues on the county council to reduce the number to 450, but an unholy alliance between the Liberals and the Labour party reversed the decision and Dunmow was saddled with 900 houses. I fear that the unique character and charm of that small town in Essex, which took perhaps 1,000 years to develop, will be destroyed because we, the custodians of the planning system today, did not have the foresight to realise what we were doing.

The situation is getting worse. I read in the newspaper only the other day that more houses will be required to feed this white elephant. Small villages such as Takeley and Little Dunmow will be smothered by this behemoth to provide housing. That is wrong. If the housing is needed, which I doubt, new towns and villages should be built. Ancient settlements that have taken hundreds of years to develop should not be sacrificed. They can never be replaced.

It is a question not only of covering green fields with buildings, but of the quality of the buildings. We have only to visit any small or large settlement to see the depredations wrought by architects and town planners since 1950 or thereabouts. Some of the worst excrescences and eyesores have been built by local authorities and central Government—tax offices, hospitals and schools built with no imagination and with no thought about how they would fit into their environment.

Sir Irvine Patrick

Marsham street.

Mr. Stephen

That is a good example. When I was briefly personal assistant to the late Nicholas Ridley, he took me to a window in his Marsham street office and said, "This is the best view in London because from here, you cannot see Marsham street." I am glad that it is to be razed to the ground. The sooner the better.

I entirely approve of the Government's policy of shifting the burden of providing public rented housing to housing associations, which have done a magnificent job. Since 1988, with money supplied by central Government, they have built 67,000 more houses. We constantly hear from the Labour party, and no doubt we shall hear it again when the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) winds up, about capital receipts. The capital receipts from the sale of council housing can be spent by local authorities if they are debt-free. Even if they are not debt-free, 25 per cent. can be spent. The problem is that the local authorities that have the receipts are often not those that need the money to build more housing.

As local authority spending amounts to about 25 per cent. of all public expenditure, no Chancellor of the Exchequer could ignore it in planning his inflation strategy. If local authorities were at liberty to release the receipts into the money supply, the Chancellor would not be able to keep control of inflation.

Mr. Raynsford

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stephen

The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity in a minute, because I am about to finish. There would, of course, be no capital receipts at all if the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats had had their way.

8.47 pm

Mr. Peter Brooke (City of London and Westminster, South)

I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) for having misled him by not having previously risen, but the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) will be delayed for a little more than a minute.

Yesterday morning, I was on the unfinished ramparts of James Stirling's great building at No. 1, Poultry, with Lord Palumbo, its owner, and a bagpiper and drums. A tattered Union Jack was flying from a nearby building. There was a strong echo of the siege of Lucknow. Earlier there was a reference to this part of the parliamentary week being a black hole. I realise that that meant an astronomical black hole, not a historical one. I have not felt during this debate that I was in a black hole of any sort.

I shall try to make the shortest speech of the debate. I declare what 1 might call a non-interest as chairman of the Building Societies Ombudsman Council, a role which in fact precludes me from playing any parliamentary part on its behalf. I am not a member of the Select Committee, which is why I waited until all my hon. Friends who serve on it had been able to speak. I am not remotely an expert on the subject. I compliment the Select Committee arid its Chairman on its report, which is so clear that one was able to understand it, even during the debate. It was certainly a stimulus to revisiting the evidence during the recess.

In the same spirit, I compliment the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), the Chairman of the Select Committee, on his masterly and even-handed introduction to this evening's debate, which made it easier for someone like me.

The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) said that too much was said about the two different sides of the Chamber. In a mischievous spirit, I say to her that her party has always adopted the policy of running with the hare and apologising to the hounds when they caught up, so both sides of the Chamber would feature in every speech made by a Liberal Democrat.

Our former colleague Sir Carol Mather, the hon. Member for Esher, who once commanded a battalion of the Welsh Guards, found himself in Moscow, sitting next to a senior officer in the Russian armed forces who asked him his view of the cold war at a time when it was very cold. Carol Mather gave a totally predictable reply and the colonel said, "Colonel Mather, you are making a constituency speech." Carol acknowledged that that was an extremely good analysis of the speech that he had made.

Like the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope), I shall draw on constituency experience during my remarks, which will inevitably be discursive. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) said that city centres were cold and desolate. I regard it as a given that we would seek to see residents within them. The homeless necessarily play a role in my constituency—that is a characteristic of inner-city seats.

I wish to dwell for a moment on the relationship between the homeless and residents. When Sir Freddie Laker erected his tented city in Pimlico a little after I became the Member of Parliament for that area, I was asked at the Civil Aviation Authority inquiry whether I was in favour of it moving somewhere else. I said that that was the last thing that I wanted it to do because that would simply transfer the problem to another part of London and another set of residents. There is a genuine problem involved in providing supportive institutional facilities in residential locations. I realise the need to put such facilities near the problems that they seek to solve because one can only ask people to attend them voluntarily and there is no power of coercion. But there is no question but that such facilities impinge on the residential areas around them. We must find new vehicles and devices of education and consultation so that we can carry residents with us on homeless matters, just as we have to on heritage issues.

I shall reiterate briefly the point that I made about day centres, and the need to ensure that they are comprehensive, during the Standing Committee on the Housing Bill, of which a number of us are veterans. I salute the foyer idea for the young homeless, but I am conscious that the last 10 per cent. of capital funding is proving difficult to find in foyer after foyer. If the money is not found, the foyers will carry severe capital costs thereafter. As many people write to Members of Parliament expressing concern about the homeless, I make an incidental appeal: one way that the general public can provide help is to ensure that foyers receive that last element.

I welcome the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to defer conclusions on changes to housing benefit regulations as they refer to service charges because of the social considerations that apply, however homelessness is defined.

Paragraph 265 of the Select Committee's report refers to housing stock in central London. My constituency has lost 1,000 electors a year every year for, I think, the past 46. That is not just the spirit of Abercrombie—it is not slum clearance. The reason for that loss involves indigenous people moving out, company flats, foreigners and, now, absentee owners, who purchase flats as investments for partial residence during the year because London is recognised as having political security.

I am all in favour of the open society and I would not seek to prevent absentee owners acquiring those properties, but there is a risk that the city will lose its heart in the process. There is a further problem of leaseholders' enfranchisement and the risk of slowing it down. If the absentee owners are not present, they cannot be approached in order to be part of the qualified majority necessary to secure the freehold. That is ironic because they do not, on the whole, understand the leasehold principle; they are more interested in acquiring the property than in reading the small print of their contract—but they would like to avail themselves of the freehold if they could.

Holiday lets represent another form of housing that is taken out of normal occupation. They represent a separate irony as they are flats that are in continuous occupation by foreigners—often owned by foreign investors. They are not empty—they contribute to the city's liveliness—but tend to be vastly overcrowded, with adverse consequences for their permanent neighbours. There is a need for local authorities to have resources necessary to monitor them. There is no question but that there is tourism pressure on the centre and, as we were saying in the seminar on London's future at the Guild hall last Friday, the more we can encourage development outside the inner core of the city, the better.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, when he was Under-Secretary of State for Health and after he had answered 50 Adjournment debates on hospital closures, wrote a spoof parody of an Adjournment speech by a Minister on hospital closures, which included the memorable phrase in characteristic dress: I now turn to the police raid on the nurses' home. I now turn to paragraph 272 of the Select Committee's report, which relates to developments in Birmingham and bringing commercial property back into residential use.

I have had a personal interest in the matter since the late 1950s; it was initially derived from the inner-city area in Philadelphia. Ed Bacon, the father of Kevin Bacon the film actor, was the chief planning officer of Philadelphia and the author of a very good book called, "Design In Cities"—he was a rare example of his profession in that he featured on the front cover of Time magazine. He and the late Oskar Stonorov, an equally rare example of an architect who was admired by both architects and planners, were very much involved in the revival and renewal of downtown Philadelphia.

I am delighted by the Birmingham experience, to which the Select Committee referred. I am also delighted at the prediction that 40,000 potential homes in central London will come back into use out of office accommodation, of which at least half are thought to be in my constituency.

Paragraph 271 relates to living over the shop. That subject has also been one of my interests for a considerable time, although it arose later. My interest in the subject initially arose in Bath during the 1970s, where the issue posed an acute problem. Almost as soon as I became a Member of Parliament in my present constituency, a constituent in Soho, who is still my constituent, interested me in the subject. I remember giving lunch to him and Sir Hugh Rossi, who was the shadow spokesman for the position of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration—what a pleasure it is to call him my right hon. Friend—in the far-off days when the Conservative party was in opposition. The development has had a long germination, but I am pleased by its progress.

Finally, on a personal and idiosyncratic footnote, I refer to paragraphs 254 and 256, which relate to the standards and quality in buildings. I am chairman of the Conference on Training in Architectural Conservation—COTAC—and I declare my interest. I run the slight risk of being ruled out of order by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, even though, before you took the Chair, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish brought Stonehenge into the debate. I am not sure whether he remembers the very good spoof by Frank Muir of the Architects Journal interviewing a caveman on what he thought about the development of henges as an addition to the housing stock. The caveman thought that they would be draughty and was doubtful whether they would catch on.

COTAC is preoccupied with heritage craftsmen and their supply. I make no apology for raising that, as the majority of listed buildings are private houses. A rough and ready calculation is that half the construction industry takes the form of the refurbishment of buildings rather than new build. About 5 per cent. of that is heritage work, but it concerns more than the 2.5 per cent. of the labour force that straight arithmetic suggests, because the activity is labour-intensive, and, therefore, in COTAC's view thoroughly worth encouraging. There is a problem with apprenticeships. Since the move of builders and contractors into management, because they no longer employ apprentices, and because subcontractors are often too small to do so, it is tricky to make certain that the supply is sustained.

I shall have stayed within the limits of brevity if I make one final plea. It concerns the mild potential conflict between conservation officers and surveyors who are employed by people who are thinking of buying houses. Conservation officers are perfectly properly very preoccupied with ensuring that listed buildings should be repaired in a manner that is totally in line with conservation. It is irritating for the owner thereafter to hear the surveyor for the person who is thinking of buying the house say that the work has been done in a manner that is not wholly satisfactory, when, in fact, the owner of the house had no choice but to do it in the way in which the conservation officer required.

8.59 pm

Mr. Nick Raynsford (Greenwich)

I declare an interest. I act as a consultant to HACAS Ltd., the social housing consultancy.

It is right that the House should have an opportunity to consider the important issue of housing need. In introducing the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) spelled out lucidly and very well the main concerns that were identified by the Select Committee, which he chairs, in its report on housing need that was published earlier in the year. Several hon. Members have contributed very useful insights, largely drawn from a range of differing constituency experiences. It is a comment on the natural ingenuity of hon. Members, not least the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), that those constituency interests have managed to embrace Russian generals, Philadelphia planners, cavemen and Stonehenge. It is remarkable what can be brought into constituency interests.

I was intrigued by the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick), both of whom spoke about the much-hated Kelvin flats. I had the pleasure of being in Sheffield a year or so ago when they were in the process of being demolished. I can testify that the community shared that pleasure at the disappearance of an utterly loathed blot on the Sheffield landscape—a monument to the kind of housing that we should never allow to be built again.

The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) raised the issue of capital receipts. Since I was unable to intervene, he may like to think about this question: if it is financially irresponsible for a Chancellor to allow the release of capital receipts, why did he support his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in releasing 100 per cent. of capital receipts between November 1992 and March 1994? Indeed, during that period, the Government allowed local authorities to use 100 per cent. of their capital receipts for housing investment.

Mr. Stephen

The answer is that the limited release of capital receipts was consistent with the Government's economic strategy at the time.

Mr. Raynsford

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman said that. He will know that that release of capital receipts encouraged recovery in the housing market and achieved a level of output of social housing that was within the range that most experts believe is necessary to meet housing needs. Since the Government reversed that policy in April 1994, the housing market has once again been in extreme difficulties and social housing output has fallen to levels far below every reasonable estimate of need—a point to which we shall return. l am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, all members of the Select Committee and their advisers on an excellent report. It makes an important and significant contribution to our understanding of the many complex issues involved in assessing the demand for housing and the scale of housing need.

Few people can feel comfortable about the state of housing in England today. Our country's performance in responding to the many housing problems that we face has in recent years been woefully inadequate. To summarise: we face an acute problem of homelessness. Local authorities in England last year accepted 120,000 households as homeless, but that includes only those officially recorded. It is a sobering comment on the official statistics that the vast majority of people who sleep rough, huddling in doorways under blankets or in cardboard boxes, never feature in the official statistics because they have not approached the local authority and have therefore not been recorded.

With repossessions continuing at a rate of 1,000 per week, the problem of homelessness is clearly impacting on the owner-occupier market as much as anywhere. That contributes to the continuing problem of insecurity that overhangs the market.

Although there have been some encouraging signs of recovery in the first six months of 1996, the market remains in a fragile state. Recovery is patchy, and is certainly not feeding through into any substantial nationwide increase in housing starts. The figures for the three months ending May 1996 show new starts 9 per cent. down on the equivalent period last year. While the output of new homes for sale is down, the comparable figures for new output of rented homes for those in social need is nothing short of catastrophic.

Councils have to all intents and purposes ceased to be able to build homes, and housing association output, down by 22 per cent. over the first four months of this year, shows the drastic impact of two successive steep cuts in the Housing Corporation's budget. Consequently, over the past five years the annual output of new social housing has fallen to the lowest level since the end of the second world war.

At the same time, 1.5 million homes in England are still unfit for human habitation, with many others sub-standard in one way or another, with many desperately hard to keep warm in winter. The problems are found in all tenures. While there are especially acute concentrations of properties in poor condition in the local authority and privately rented sectors, the largest number of sub-standard homes are owner-occupied. That fact was brought out well by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) when he spoke of the many owner-occupied properties in poor condition in his constituency.

That necessarily quick snapshot of housing conditions in Britain in 1996 is shocking enough, but even more shocking is the inadequacy of current Government programmes designed to tackle the problem. By international comparison, our performance is nothing short of disgraceful. We lag right at the bottom of the list of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Developmemt countries in terms of housing investment. We spend only about 3 per cent. of our GDP on housing, whereas comparable European countries of a similar size, such as Germany, France and Italy, are spending between 5 and 6 per cent. of their GDP on housing investment.

Perhaps it is asking too much to expect the Government to admit those failings openly and publicly, but at least we have the right to expect a realistic and informed appraisal of the extent of unmet housing needs.

Mr. Thomason

Am I to understand that the hon. Gentleman is telling us that his party's policy is to release the capital receipts held by local government to address all those alleged ills? If so, can he confirm that it is also his party's policy at least to maintain the level of housing investment at its current level, so he is thereby making a substantial spending pledge? Does he have the agreement of his colleagues in the shadow Cabinet in that pledge?

Mr. Raynsford

I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman, who must have been asleep for much of the past four years, that the Labour party has made a clear commitment and pledge to release on a phased basis the capital receipts estimated by the Chartered Institute of Housing at £5 billion—money that is currently unavailable for investment because of foolish Government restrictions. That commitment is shared by my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, and it will enable an incoming Labour Government significantly to increase the output of housing for social need, of which there is a chronic shortage, as the hon. Gentleman will know full well from his involvement with the Select Committee's work.

Mr. Elletson

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Raynsford

No, I will make some progress first. But I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

It will come as a considerable surprise to those unfamiliar with the Government's neglect of housing to learn that between 1977, when the Labour Government published their comprehensive housing policy review, and 1995, there was no official published estimate of the scale of housing need in this country.

I always believe that it is right to give credit where credit is due, and the Minister now responsible for housing, the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, should be congratulated because, unlike any of his Conservative predecessors, he has at least allowed departmental estimates of housing need to be brought into the public domain. That may have required a certain amount of pressure; it may have required repeated parliamentary questions to prompt that outcome. Nevertheless the figures were published, and we welcome that fact.

I wish that I could be as positive about the figures themselves, but they are far from adequate in most respects. Indeed, they revealed a process almost diametrically opposite to that which should inform policy making. Instead of starting with an impartial, objective appraisal of the full range of needs as a basis of reaching decisions on the necessary scale and type of investment, clearly the Government's objective has been to legitimise the current inadequate levels of investment by tailoring the figures to meet the anticipated level of new construction.

The Select Committee effectively demolished that charade. Its carefully considered and cogently argued report draws on evidence from leading experts to demonstrate conclusively that the Government's estimates are out of line with those of all other recognised authorities. Nor can the Government question the credentials of those authorities as foremost among them was Alan Holmans, research fellow at Cambridge university and until recently chief housing economist at the Department of the Environment.

Mr. Holmans' evidence, which clearly impressed the Select Committee, demonstrates a need for new housing provision for social needs of around 117,000 homes a year over the 20-year period to 2011 if we are to provide adequately for the backlog of unmet needs, as well as the needs that will arise through normal demographic and social changes over the same period. That contrasts with a Department of the Environment estimate of a need of between 60,000 and 100,000 new lettings a year over the decade to 2001.

To add insult to injury, Government policy is predicated on a requirement to meet only the bottom end of that range—60,000 new lettings per year.

I regret to say that the Government's response to the Select Committee report published in May this year is simply inadequate. Its failure to address fundamental issues and its repeated use of feeble excuses for not responding to the Select Committee's recommendations have rightly prompted disappointment and derision throughout the housing world. Its weakness is revealed as early as paragraph 5, where it becomes crystal clear that—as with the estimates of housing need published a year earlier—the Government are interested not in an objective and truthful picture of the expected scale of need, but rather in a cosmetic exercise designed to legitimise current levels of investment.

Paragraph 5 states: The Government in deciding how much social housing to provide has to consider not just estimates of need for social housing, but also the appropriate balance between public and private provision for housing and the impact that a higher or lower level of provision may have on private supply of housing. Higher levels of provision of social housing could crowd out the reviving private rented sector and suppress growth in home ownership. The Government's aim therefore remains as stated in the Housing White Paper to provide additional social lettings in line with the lower end of the Government's range of estimates. Overall, there are choices to be made about how public money is spent, and estimates of need for social housing have to be balanced against competing demands for resources. Let us analyse the three lines of defence offered by the Government. First, a value judgment about an appropriate balance between public and private sector provision is given greater importance than estimates of the need for social housing. That is little more than an admission that the Government's ideological prejudices are being allowed to override objective assessments of need.

Secondly, the Government advance the claim that increased provision of social housing could crowd out private lettings and suppress the growth in home ownership, with no evidence whatsoever to support that assertion. Interestingly, elsewhere in the Government's response it is suggested that a revival in private renting might "compensate" for a decline in the growth of owner-occupation, but no fears are expressed that the process of reviving private renting might crowd out or suppress owner-occupation. The contrast between the language in those two passages is another telling illustration of the Government's outdated ideological fixation with the promotion of the private sector at the expense of the public sector.

The Government's third admission is that the amount of public money available will determine how much social housing can be provided—so much for the pretence that decisions on housing investment are being informed by estimates of need. It is the other way round. The acceptance of need is being informed by the available finance.

Mr. Stephen

Has the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), given the hon. Gentleman a blank cheque? If so, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell the House.

Mr. Raynsford

The hon. Gentleman has not been listening. I have made it clear that the Labour party is committed to a phased release of capital receipts, and we have repeated that commitment many times. It is not a blank cheque—it is a significant investment that will help to get the unemployed back to work, building homes to meet our housing need. It will also ensure that we tackle some of the country's economic needs.

Mr. Elletson

Has the hon. Gentleman not admitted in the past that this scheme is not a no-cost option? What will that cost be, and what impact will the scheme have on council taxes?

Mr. Raynsford

I will tell the hon. Gentleman full well what the benefits will be: more homes for people in need, and more people back in work. The costs will be determined by the Labour Government when they are elected and when they decide on the phasing of the release of those receipts. I can assure him that the total sum of capital receipts is estimated by the Chartered Institute of Housing to be £5 billion. We shall allow that money to be released on a phased basis, and the decision will be taken when we are in government.

Even the Government's inadequate estimate of the requirement of 60,000 new lettings a year may prove to be more than the Government, in their dying days, are capable of providing. As the report highlights in paragraphs 98 and 99, public expenditure on new social housing has been steadily reducing in recent years. The DOE's submission to the Committee showed the impact of this in a declining level of new lettings from 70,000 in 1995–96 to 58,000 in 1996–97 and 55,000 in 1997–98. That was based largely on the expected output from the Housing Corporation's programme agreed in February.

If, as is rumoured, the Housing Corporation budget—which has been cut savagely in each of the past two years—is raided once again by a Chancellor desperate to cut public expenditure to make room for pre-election tax cuts, it is difficult to see how even the woefully inadequate target of 60,000 can be achieved. I invite the Minister to come clean to the House when he responds. I understand that he attended the Cabinet this morning, so he should be in a good position to tell us what is in store. Will the Housing Corporation budget be maintained or cut next year? If it is to be cut, how will the minimum projected level of output be achieved?

Mr. Curry

The hon. Gentleman is flattering me—the Secretary of State attended the Cabinet, not I.

Mr. Raynsford

I stand corrected. I understood that the Secretary of State was absent and the right hon. Gentleman attended in his place. However, I shall still look forward to an illuminating response to the question, as I presume that he has communicated with the Secretary of State on the outcome of the Cabinet meeting.

Reading through the Government's response to the report, it is blindingly obvious that the figures have been bent to meet the Government's preconceptions as to the scale of programme that they can afford. No allowance has been made of any possible trend that could point in a different direction. Let us briefly look at some of the statistics. First, I wish to refer to the extent of the backlog of unmet housing need. According to Alan Holmans, the backlog may be as high as 480,000: 110,000 concealed households, 140,000 sharing households, 50,000 would-be couples, 55,000 owner-occupiers seeking a move to social housing for reasons of health or age, 25,000 home owners seeking social housing because they cannot pay their mortgages, and 100,000 single people either homeless or living in hostels.

The Government's response is derisory, and does not even address the issue. Instead, it tries to redefine the need in different and highly restrictive terms, referring to rough sleepers and households in bed and breakfasts as though these were the only categories in housing need. The DOE official who gave evidence with the Minister to the Committee referred to the very few hundreds of rough sleepers plus a small number of people in bed and breakfast. When challenged about those living in totally inadequate accommodation, he made the curious assertion: I think it is more difficult to say that you should use those as an addition to the total number of houses you required because obviously one way of achieving improvement is to improve those houses. That begs a number of questions. For example, what will be done to increase the rate at which those sub-standard homes are improved? As the Minister knows, the Government are dismantling the mandatory home renovation grant system and have consistently refused to countenance a comprehensive mandatory national licensing system for multi-occupied houses.

Even if the Government were energetically pursuing the problems of properties in a poor condition, the Minister must recognise that it is total nonsense to pretend that not one of the hundreds of thousands of people living in such conditions will need to be rehoused in social housing. If the Minister does pretend that that is the case, he should explain to the House why the first category listed in the clause of the Housing Bill that defines the groups of people who should be given priority in the allocation of social housing is people occupying insanitary or over-crowded housing or otherwise living in unsatisfactory housing conditions". Does the Minister intend to amend the Housing Bill when it comes back to the House on Monday on the ground that everybody living in such conditions should be assisted by the renovation of their homes rather than the allocation of social housing? That is the implication of his official's response to the reasonable questions of the members of the Select Committee.

The Government's position on the backlog of unmet housing needs is untenable, but their stance on the scope for increased owner-occupation is equally suspect. I shall not go into the complex methodology of the "net stock" approach to estimating housing needs, but it is based on assumptions about the numbers likely to resolve their housing needs through other options.

The extent of owner-occupation is critical to those assumptions. The Government's response can only be described as that of an ostrich—they are sticking their head firmly in the sand to avoid seeing the unpleasant evidence from the surrounding world. The experience of negative equity, repossessions, recession and anxiety and insecurity in the market are not features that the Government wish to countenance, so they simply assert that owner-occupation will grow from 68 per cent. to 71 per cent. by 2001. As the Select Committee recognised—and all the evidence from people in the know reinforced the message—the growth of owner-occupation has slowed dramatically because of the impact of the recession, which was caused by the Government's economic mismanagement. As a result, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which probably has the greatest expertise on that subject, believes that the likelihood of the 71 per cent. figure being reached by 2001 is remote. The prospects for continued growth in home ownership are less favourable than in previous decades, but the Government are blithely ignoring that evidence. The truth is that the Government's estimate of the growth in owner-occupation is unlikely to cover needs. Apart from that, the assumptions on owner-occupation—and, therefore, the Government's ability to reduce the need for social housing in the next few years through owner-occupation—are out of line with all informed opinion in the housing world. I doubt whether the Minister would be willing to wager his shirt on a 71 per cent. level of home ownership by the year 2001. If he is, I will gladly take the bet.

Government estimates of the scale of housing need are hopelessly inadequate and their estimates of the scale of housing demand are equally at odds with reality, but in a different way. Government estimates of housing demand, published last year, project that an additional 4.4 million households will require housing in the 25 years from 1991 to 2016. The accuracy of those figures may be debatable, but the broad consensus of those who gave evidence to the Select Committee was that the forecasts were sound and that, in the past, such forecasts have generally tended to underestimate rather than overestimate the level of demand. Projections imply a need for some 4.4 million extra homes between 1991 and 2016. We are already one fifth of the way to 2016 and if the trends of the past five years are continued, we will fall dramatically short of the necessary level of housing provision. In the past five years, we have started just over 700,000 homes in total—including public, private, and housing association provision. At that rate, we shall be short of the necessary figure of 4.4 million homes by 2016 by some 800,000. Quite simply, that will be a recipe for increased homelessness, overcrowding and housing deprivation, as well as posing a risk of house price inflation if effective demand is allowed to run too far ahead of supply.

The Minister may suggest that the market will respond quickly to any such imbalance; but the housing market does not tend to respond quickly to overcome such imbalances, and it often cannot because of planning restrictions. The housing market has proved highly volatile in the past, with wild fluctuations and extreme boom-bust cycles. Millions of home owners rue the impact of the last major boom-bust cycle in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

The price of the Government's mismanagement of the economy and the housing market, stoking up an unsustainable boom in the 1980s and then turning their back on the victims when the market collapsed in the 1990s, is the very large number of people who have endured the anguish of repossession and the misery of negative equity.

We must learn the lessons of the past and ensure that the housing market is helped to grow at a modest but sustainable rate, and we must avoid any return to unsustainable boom-bust cycles. That is why the Government should now be extremely worried that housing output has been allowed to fall seriously behind the levels necessary to meet the demand anticipated for the next two decades. If that is not corrected soon, we may well find ourselves heading for another inflationary boom, and that would do no good to the housing market or the millions of households who would end up suffering as a result.

The policies pursued by the present Government in the past 17 years have involved a betrayal of their responsibilities to house the nation. They have betrayed every section of the community. They have betrayed home owners. They have betrayed leaseholders, whom they promised to help and then sold out to the interests of the big landowners who bankroll the Tory party. They have betrayed tenants, whether private, council—

Sir Irvine Patnick

indicated dissent.

Mr. Raynsford

Oh yes they do. We saw what happened to the 1993 leasehold reform measure. We saw that, and we saw the betrayal of leaseholders by the removal of the right to manage from the Housing Bill earlier this summer.

The Government have betrayed tenants, whether private, council or housing association, by forcing up rents, cutting investment, reducing tenancy rights and plunging an increasing number into benefit dependency and poverty traps.

The Government have betrayed the homeless, using the Housing Bill to remove the statutory safety net that has been there for 17 years, and which every informed organisation concerned with the homeless—every church, every housing association, every voluntary body involved with the homeless—says is a necessary and correct way to protect some of the most vulnerable people in the country, and provides proper cover and help.

The Government's housing record is a disgrace, which will come back to haunt them as we approach the general election. Of the many reasons for which the Government will deserve to lose that election, their failure to meet the housing needs of our nation will be among the most powerful and persuasive. Their lamentable and inadequate response to the Select Committee report will provide a revealing and telling epitaph to a dying and discredited Government.

9.27 pm

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry)

There is a difference between a Government or Opposition day, in which we engage in the normal polemics of this place, and the opportunity for a more reflective and discursive approach that a Select Committee report provides. I plan to choose the less exciting of those approaches, but it may be more appropriate.

The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) may have forgotten that the Housing Bill has almost completed its passage through Parliament—although we join for what may be our last passage of arms in that matter on Monday—because he made his familiar speech again. I could have written the peroration myself. I have heard it so often that I have come to know it almost by heart, but it deserved a slightly wider audience—of three rather than two.

The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) chairs the Select Committee, to which I gave evidence. I also had the pleasure of his company on the Housing Bill Standing Committee. After the first sitting, he complained that too many documents and too much paper were being thrown at him. It reminds me—my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) will recall this—of George III's response to Edward Gibbon's latest production: "Another damn volume, Mr. Gibbon."

The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish remarked on the structure of the Select Committee, but that is not for me to respond to. He intelligently summarised the issues raised by the Select Committee report and, broadly speaking, I intend to follow the structure of his remarks in responding to the points that have been made. He talked about the human circumstances of housing and homelessness, 1 he economic cost of housing in individual and national terms, and the crucial issue of planning.

I understand the instincts of people who wish to protect the open countryside, the green areas between built-up zones, the woodlands and our traditional rural landscape. I should strike a small note of caution, however, because someone with a house overlooking the countryside may have a slightly different sense of priorities from someone whose aspirations for a home have not yet been met. One of our central dilemmas in dealing with housing is that building houses is not popular and meets enormous resistance.

It is easy for the housing lobbies and those of us in housing politics to say where we think people should live and where it is convenient for them to live—it may not be where we happen to live ourselves—and to forget the tremendous resistance to construction. Whenever plans are submitted, or housing allocations in the home counties or further afield are published, there is resistance because people genuinely feel that there is a cost to be paid in terms of land being taken. The answer must be to build on the so-called brown-field sites, but to say that every element of housing need can be satisfied in that way is not only extremely prescriptive but puts more housing on those sites than they can sustain.

We all agree that it is difficult to come up with a formula for the estimates that is not within a wide bracket because they are based on so many uncertainties and permutations. Tonight, we have discussed two sets of estimates: first, the household projection estimates and, secondly, the estimates of need. The household projection estimates are that there will be 4.4 million new households by 2016. The hon. Member for Greenwich was right to say that, historically, we have tended to underestimate rather than overestimate housing needs. They result from many factors: population growth, which is one of the major factors; changing age structures; changes in behaviour; and the number of single-person households, which is growing in every age group. That category includes not just single or unmarried mothers, but single people throughout the age range.

The hon. Members for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) mentioned the problem of elderly people. Obviously, a better use of our towns and cities must be a priority. We have set a target of ensuring that 50 per cent. of all new build is on sites that have 'been used before. We have now attained 49 per cent., whereas in the 1980s we managed less than 40 per cent. We must constantly see how we can improve that percentage because, in some areas, building is part of regenerating arid enhancing our cities. It is part of improving the environment, not what is regarded as a constant erosion of it. It may not be a panacea, but we must look in that direction for a significant part of our new build.

The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is right to say that we should make better use of our existing stock. There are 800,000 empty properties in England, 700,000 of which are in the private sector. That is why we are doing our best to encourage the use of those properties. Housing associations have an important role to play in buying and restoring derelict buildings.

No one can come up with precise figures on the calculation of housing demand—many extrapolations are built into the formulas—but I agree that we must keep the figures under review and develop our methods of assessing need. We are looking ahead, and we have asked the department of applied economics at Cambridge to develop an economic model that will enable us to establish the possible future need for social housing under a range of different scenarios. I do not think that there will be a definitive answer to the question.

My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South raised some important issues about the unfortunate people who do not have homes. He made an important point about the difficulty of coexistence between homeless people and residents. For example, we have to seek planning permission for our winter shelters. In addition, people have difficulty finding a conventional shelter.

People also look for wet shelters, for detoxification units and for shelters where people with mental health problems can go, which are more difficult to find. Hon. Members must have experienced resistance in their constituencies when approval has been sought to provide an establishment for people who have behavioural problems. No matter what reassurances are given, people usually think that there is a good reason to place the shelter somewhere else.

A homeless person in a hostel is better than a homeless person in the street—for the person concerned and for the residents. There is too much facile discussion about homelessness and too many assumptions that if a homeless person is plonked in a home they will be all right—they may have been homeless for many years, and they may have a multiplicity of disadvantages.

A month or so ago, I visited a Salvation Army shelter in Whitechapel, and talked to a young person in his accommodation. He said that it is terrifying to be given a key, because that is responsibility. He said, "I have to take control of my own life now." He admitted that that was a difficult thing for him to do and that occasionally he was tempted to walk out of the shelter and back on to the street. The framework of care is crucial in helping people who have these difficulties.

Mrs. Maddock

I am interested in what the Minister is saying about the element of care. I hope that he will say these things during the review on benefits as fervently as he is saying them here. I have made representations to the Minister on this issue. Many people are concerned that the packages will not add up if we do not have that care element in benefit.

Mr. Curry

I understand the hon. Lady's concern in this regard. My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South talked about the foyer projects. I understand their importance, but they are not a panacea. There is a temptation to look for something that is the answer to all the problems of homelessness, but it ought to be resisted.

Today, I opened a different sort of project, called off the street and into work, which attempts to place homeless people in skilled employment. They will not be employed because they are homeless; they will be employed because they have the skills. The fact that they are homeless will be irrelevant. If they have a job, they will be able to acquire a home—which is important when they try to get a job—and they will be able to have a more "conventional" and self-sustaining life style. The scheme has a wide range of business support as well as London local authority support. Voluntary organisations are familiar with the rough sleepers initiative. It is a market-oriented way of helping homeless people. I was privileged to open the initiative this morning and to see how effective it is.

The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is correct: the record of local authorities in turning over property for collecting rents is improving. Some authorities have a long way to go, but the overall record is improving, which is good.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the problem of houses in the wrong places. He said that we should take the jobs to the people rather than force the people to migrate to find jobs. I believe that both circumstances will always prevail. I offer the example of the efforts of development corporations, the jobs that Nissan has created in the north-east of England, and the jobs that have followed the Korean investment and the Siemens relocation.

We have tried to create new opportunities to allow people to remain in their areas because we know that they are attached to the concept of locality and neighbourhood, but we want people to migrate elsewhere if that is how they seek to improve themselves.

The hon. Gentleman referred also to the wrong type of house. That is an important issue: needs change. We must deal with the problem of under-occupation, as it is known in the jargon. More than half a million local authority and housing association tenants have two or more spare bedrooms. We do not propose to say, "We must decant you because we need the space for someone else." People may want to be able to have family members to stay or, what is more, they may have been brought up in those properties.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) referred, in a fascinating historical account, to that crucial sense of belonging and identity. Over the years, we have learnt from programmes such as slum clearance—which, as far as I was concerned, was first highlighted in the book "The Life and Death of a Great American City"—the effect of uprooting people from their neighbourhoods and the resulting social problems. We aim for a better match, but that policy is necessarily inefficient in economic terms. We cannot avoid that: we put up with the inefficiency because the social considerations are more important.

Hon. Members returned time and again to the notion of community and regeneration. That is at the heart of housing policy. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish referred to difficult housing estates. My hon. Friend the Member for Hallam and the hon. Member for Hillsborough mentioned that problem, as did many others. We have moved away from a pure renovation estate action type of programme—however impressive that appears—to a more integrated approach. The evidence from around Europe—not just in the United Kingdom—points to the fact that, if crucial elements are missing, there is a danger of decline. A spanking new estate may be completed and still look good five years later, but 10 years down the road it may face all the old problems because we failed to tackle the social difficulties within the estate framework.

Mr. Elletson

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the quality of life on many council housing estates has been transformed by the right-to-manage scheme, whereby the Government have transferred the management of estates to their tenants? Will he examine closely the actions of the Labour-controlled Blackpool council, which has deliberately sought to frustrate the wishes of the tenants of the Queen's Park estate in my constituency? They want to exercise the right to manage and they have been trained to do so by Department of the Environment schemes, but they have been confronted by the underhand tactics of Blackpool council's housing authority. Will my right hon. Friend investigate their complaints?

Mr. Curry

My hon. Friend is right: that is an important issue. Since 1990, 112 tenant management organisations have been set up, and more than 100 are in the process of being formed. I hear what he says about the problems in his constituency, and I am willing to examine any difficulties there. As a matter of fact, this morning I signed the order making Blackpool a unitary authority. Perhaps the extra responsibility will bring additional openness to the council's actions. I also signed the order for Blackburn.

Mr. Elletson

indicated dissent.

Mr. Curry

I know that my hon. Friend takes a somewhat different view but, as Blackpool will now have additional responsibility, perhaps it will review its behaviour and we will find that responsibility brings some improvement.

The estate renewal programme makes an important contribution to difficult estates. Several hon. Members have said that we should not become fixed on one form of institutional solution, and I agree. Large-scale voluntary transfers have a significant role to play. The estate renewal programme is based on the need to help the worst estates which, frankly, must be given away if they are to be transferred. That approach involves a mixture of demolition and renovation.

Sandwell was one of the first authorities to be included in the scheme and to go to a new social landlord. Two or three of the first schemes in that programme are planning transfers to the new housing companies which will shortly be made possible by new legislation. We are therefore beginning to see diversification in the forms transfer can take and the nature of the social landlords to which property can be transferred. I think that that is a welcome flexibility and I hope that all the mechanisms will be used in the circumstances which seem most sensible for a particular estate.

Hon. Members are right when they say that a sense of ownership is important. The Bonamy estate in Southwark, which is also known to the hon. Member for Greenwich, has benefited from demolition, rebuild and recreation of the street pattern. People there have gardens. The hon. Gentleman and I shared a platform at Central hall, Westminster, where, to our mutual distress, we found ourselves on the same side on a number of points. We found ourselves defending people's right to have a garden as a means of expressing their identity. A garden is often an individual and personal thing. We had a detailed discussion with one tenant about what was the best form of winter-flowering cherry. For anyone who is particularly interested, it is a prunus subhirtella autumnalis.

Holly street in the east end of London, a deck access estate, had all the social problems with which we are now familiar, but it is now an attractive area. However much we might scorn the eponymous Acacia avenue, the Acacia avenues work better in social and human terms than the tower blocks of the 1960s and 1970s. They were created with the best of motives, and I will not scorn what was then believed to be an answer to a difficult problem until we are confident that the ones that we now espouse will be better.

The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish raised the crucial issue of where we should put houses, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) and for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) because of their concern about the countryside. The brown-field sites must play a significant part. We need to knit it into the programmes to rebuild the cities and to make them work better.

I have no responsibility for planning matters, but occasionally I venture into the realm of planning policies. Planning policies and their revision are buttresses of that wider policy. Without them we would find it more difficult to build houses in the cities, to have people wanting to live in the cities and to create the demand that flows from the city centre. It is too easy to think that a 24-hour city is achieved by keeping the pubs open until 2 am. That is not the case. The demand needs to be generated by people of different sorts, different tenures, different backgrounds and different occupations living in cities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hallam described what has happened in Sheffield from a historical perspective and from his own experience, and he gave particularly apt examples of what makes the city work. We are trying to make the cities much more attractive, but the concern for the countryside is real. I represent the Yorkshire Dales national park, so I appreciate that. I understand the problems of summer and winter lets and the problem of second properties—a matter my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South raised, as did the hon. Member for Hillsborough from a completely different perspective.

There are villages in my constituency where I suspect that the majority of properties are second homes. The election material of all parties at the last election is probably still on the doormat of some of them. The national park even embarked on a policy of trying to restrict new building in the park to people for whom it would be the principal home, and we are engaged in a debate with the national park authority about that policy. That policy demonstrates once again that we must recognise that house building is an activity in which it is too easy to believe in theory, but which it is difficult to accept in practice when it is too close.

The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) talked about private sector renovation and housing renewal areas. I think that he acknowledges—I am glad that he got the right Bill this time; I recall that he once started a speech but then realised that he had chosen the wrong occasion on which to make it—that the mandatory grants system was not working. We need a more strategic approach. His local authority will be able to use the new legislation as part of an area renewal programme.

Quite frankly, I am not surprised that local authorities said, "It would be nice if we could meet all the demand," but they know that that is not realistic, so the measures that we have taken are sensible in the circumstances.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) that housing investment trusts are important. It is right that the balance of housing in the United Kingdom is different from that on the continent. Since taking this job, I have constantly said that we need a better equilibrium in the housing market between owner-occupation—about which I do not have a particular hang-up—private rented and social rented to try to create more diversity and choice.

I am particularly concerned that young people, when looking for accommodation at the start of their working or married life, should have the choice of high-quality private rented accommodation. What distinguishes the housing pattern in Britain from the continent is that many young people here go into owner-occupation, partly because they do not have the necessary choice. The pattern for the older age ranges is much more common across the European countries. We need diversification.

The hon. Member for Christchurch and others mentioned the elderly in community care. I have asked the Government offices to hold discussions this year with some local housing authorities in each region, specifically to discuss their action to co-ordinate work on housing with work on social and health services. They will take place either when the Government offices visit the authority to talk about the housing investment programme submissions or at meetings specially set up for the purpose. As I have mentioned to the hon. Lady on a number of occasions, we have to produce the guidance to accompany the Housing Bill, and we are anxious that it should reflect best sensible practice.

I have been somewhat discursive, but I said at the beginning that I thought that that was the best way to reply to the debate. The exchanges have been useful, and the speeches of colleagues have ranged widely. The House does not provide sufficient occasions on which we can exchange ideas. I hope that my contribution has been of some assistance in demonstrating that, despite occasional appearances to the contrary, there is much common ground on an issue of crucial importance to all of us.

9.52 pm

Mr. Bennett

With the leave of the House, I should like to thank the Minister for his reply to the debate. I also thank the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who has been on the Front Bench for much of the debate. It is appreciated in the House when Ministers come to listen and not just to participate.

I thank the other members of the Select Committee for their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) seemed to apologise for entering into the debate. I stress that one of the functions of Select Committees is to carry out the inquiry and produce a report so that the whole House is better informed. Sadly, too often, the House does not take a blind bit of notice of the report, and all that happens is that members of the Select Committee further debate the report that they have produced. The contributions from hon. Members who were not members of the Select Committee were very welcome.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) reminded us of the importance, which we stressed in the report, of trying to bring people back into the city centres and bringing shops that are empty back into residential use. He also stressed the problem of local authority rates of relet. I have a slight reservation about that. It is possible to lump the figures together and say that an authority is reletting properties in four or five weeks; a more interesting question, however, is not how long it takes overall but how long it takes to relet the really popular properties. We cannot be too critical of an authority that takes 12 weeks to relet an unpopular estate, but I am worried when it takes six or eight weeks to relet popular properties.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn ran down deck access flats, as did a number of other hon. Members. I understand the problems, but when I am in London I stay in a set of deck access flats in the Barbican. It is some of the nicest housing in London. If we knock down all the deck access flats, we may well have to take away a bit of the green belt. We must put a bit more effort into ensuring that all deck access flats are as nice to live in as those at the Barbican. The crucial thing about the Barbican is the amount that is spent on services and looking after the area. It may be better for the nation to spend money on introducing good services and maintenance in deck access flats than for us to knock them down, going for low densities and taking up more of our countryside.

The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason)—whose support on the Select Committee I appreciated—expressed enthusiasm for housing investment trusts. We must wait and see whether they manage to deliver. The Select Committee visited the west midlands and looked at some of the green belt around some of the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I understand why he and other hon. Members passionately want to protect the green belt—indeed, I share their views—but we must find somewhere for the houses to go.

The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) referred to lifetime homes. I have made the same point, and I hope that the Government will consider it with much more sympathy. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) reminded us just how much of Britain could disappear under housing. We must go for high-density housing, and make it work.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) made the important point that jobs go with housing. She then said, "Hands off the green belt." The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) made a similar point, although he also mentioned the difference between demand and need. Those are important issues. The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) raised the problems of homeless people—referring to day shelters and day care—and the problems of second homes.

This has been a very useful debate. Having said that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am tempted to sit down, although I understand that you are in the procedurally awkward position of having to suspend the sitting for three minutes, but I think that it would be unfair of me to go on filibustering. Let me express my thanks to all involved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot filibuster, or he will be brought to order.

Question deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates).

9.57 pm

Sitting suspended.

10 pm

On resuming—

It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates), put forthwith the deferred Questions on Estimates 1996–97 (Class I, Vote 1, and Class VI, Vote 1).