HC Deb 04 February 1997 vol 289 cc790-1
12. Mr. Gunnell

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the number of new lettings for social needs which will be available in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99 and (iii) 1999–2000. [12512]

Mr. Clappison

We estimate 148,000.

Mr. Gunnell

That is a rather higher figure than I had anticipated, but why is it that, when there is such a huge level of unmet social need, the Government have allowed social needs housing starts to fall to the lowest level since the second world war? I opened some of those units completed in Leeds only a week ago. Will the Minister ensure that creative partnerships, like that between Leeds city council and its five housing associations, can continue? Will he ensure that more money is made available for social housing, because we have the lowest number of social starts and it is time that the Government paid attention to it?

Mr. Clappison

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have our estimates of housing need, and that we are on target to create between 58,000 and 60,000 new lettings over the decade as a whole, which is in line with our estimate of need. We are doing so in a variety of ways and, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged by his use of the example of Leeds, we are drawing in a great deal of private finance—we estimate £1.7 billion over the next three years The hon. Gentleman asks for more money to meet needs over and beyond those that we have defined, so I regard his question as yet another plea for more public expenditure, which is in contradiction of Labour Front Benchers' apparently pre-ordained desire to stay within pre-ordained spending limits and breaches their spending commitments—once again, more public spending.

Mr. Dobson

The Minister's answer, in effect, only promises more of the same, which we all know is inadequate. Why will not the Government agree to the release of the takings from the right-to-buy sale of council houses, so that they can be invested in building new houses and improving old ones? That would create jobs in the building industry and provide new homes; and it would create new jobs in the building supply industry, whether they be for people making carpets in Halifax and Brighouse, people making electrical fittings in Basildon, or people making doors and windows in Keighley?

Mr. Clappison

The hon. Gentleman's policy will not work because, as he well knows, many of the areas with the greatest housing need, such as Birmingham, Newcastle, Hackney and Southwark, have no housing receipts to spend, whereas areas with less housing need, such as West Dorset and Malvern Hills, have the receipts. He has never explained how he will transfer the receipts from one to another.

The next problem that the hon. Gentleman faces is the fact that every pound spent from the capital receipts represents additional public spending.

Mr. Dobson

indicated dissent.

Mr. Clappison

No amount of fudging can disguise that fact; the hon. Gentleman's proposal amounts to more public spending, which would have to be paid for, as the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), wants, through more taxation—taxation of allowances, and more and more taxation.