§ The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions(Mr. John Prescott)I am very pleased to announce to the House that today we are publishing the housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All". This is the first comprehensive review of housing for 23 years. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Any search of the record will confirm that.
Housing is a basic requirement for everyone. Every member of the House will know from their postbag just how much housing matters. Decent housing gives people a stronger sense of security and identity. It strengthens communities and provides a better setting in which to raise families. It improves health, educational achievement and employment opportunities. It provides a long-term asset that can be passed on to future generations.
Despite the fact that the majority of people are satisfied with their housing, there are still too many problems. The previous Government's neglect made those problems worse. I inherited the worst repossession crisis ever, with more than 1 million homes repossessed or in negative equity, and a £19 billion backlog of repair and modernisation work in council housing. Despite Britain's mild winters, we have one of the worst records of winter deaths in Europe. Whole communities have been abandoned in ghettos of deprivation, and the number of homeless people and those sleeping rough has doubled.
Nothing in the Opposition's latest policies suggests that they have learned any lessons. Their proposals have little to do with solving problems and nothing to do with common sense. In fact, to coin a phrase, they are all mouth and no action.
We have made an early start to put things right. [Interruption.] This is what action is. We have released £5 billion of capital receipts to renovate 2 million homes. We are implementing the Egan report on raising standards in construction and are tackling the problem of cowboy builders.
Our economic policies have delivered stability, so that people can afford their own home. We have announced measures to make it easier for people to buy and sell their home. Our initiatives have reduced the number of rough sleepers by 10 per cent. These are a few of the things that we have done.
From this week, we are giving tenants a greater say in how their homes are managed. This week, the best value regime starts to ensure better services to tenants. A new housing inspectorate will ensure high standards.
The Green Paper on housing is a key part of our wider ambition to support sustainable communities. It shows how our existing initiatives fit into an overall strategy. It also sets out a range of proposals.
Over the coming weeks and months, I shall be launching the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal, the urban White Paper and the rural White Paper. The housing Green Paper, together with those documents, is a key part of our strategy to build sustainable communities in this country.
The Green Paper is a consultation document. We are seeking responses by the end of July, but we would also welcome earlier reactions to inform decisions in the next 812 three-year spending review. We shall be looking to press ahead with our housing agenda in the autumn, although clearly some of our proposals will require legislation.
The Green Paper is about quality and choice. We want to raise the quality of homes everywhere, whether they are owned by individuals or provided by landlords. We want to extend choice, so that there is more choice for tenants and for those wanting to buy their own home.
I will start with the greenest part of the Green Paper—that dealing with housing benefit and rents. Everyone recognises that housing benefit is in need of reform. It has helped distort the structure of rents and trap people in unemployment. It is difficult to understand and complex to administer. I am sure that every Member of Parliament knows that to be so from dealing with constituents.
Most people who receive housing benefit are of working age, although 41 per cent. are over 60. We are already helping those moving into work by arranging to pay benefit automatically for the first four weeks in employment, but we want a more efficient service for all who receive benefit. In the short term, we propose improvements such as computerising mail between different benefits offices. That will save the postage of 20 million pieces of paper and speed up the process.
We are also tackling fraud and error. The Green Paper proposes further options, such as a single national fraud hotline service.
§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)Oh, a hotline!
§ Mr. PrescottThe right hon. Gentleman appears to be not too concerned about fraud.
In the longer term, we want to examine the case for reforming housing benefit to give tenants greater choice over where they live, but that will require reform of rent structures. There is a consensus that council and housing association rents are a mess. We want to build a new consensus on the way forward.
§ Mr. PrescottIt means reaching agreement about commonsense proposals.
The Green Paper offers a range of options for restructuring rents. We believe that the key principles should be comparable rents for comparable properties and rents that take account of the size and quality of the homes on offer. I can give a clear commitment that, whatever changes we introduce, we shall maintain rents in the social sector at an affordable level—below market rents. I also make it absolutely clear that pensioners on housing benefit will not be affected by any proposals to reform housing benefit.
Home ownership has increased dramatically over the past few decades, owing partly to the right-to-buy programme introduced by the previous Administration, under which 1.3 million people bought their own homes. I have already referred to our initiative to make the home buying and selling process easier. We are also taking action to help first-time buyers.
We are announcing a new starter home initiative to help key workers, such as nurses and teachers and first-time buyers on modest incomes. The initiative will help them 813 to buy their own homes in areas where housing is costly, in the town or in the country. We will invite proposals from housing associations and others. Ideas could involve interest-free loans, development grants or other innovative approaches.
We are also giving new help to unemployed home owners who are moving back into work. We are helping them to pay mortgage interest for the first four weeks after they start a new job. Some home owners, especially the elderly, are unable to maintain and modernise their property. We propose a range of new options to help more people to make essential repairs.
The private rented sector provides homes for more than 2 million households. Most private landlords are professional and responsible, but a minority of bad landlords gives the whole sector a bad name. Our proposals include helping landlords to improve their expertise and standards. We intend to make sure that unscrupulous landlords who neglect their responsibilities do not profit from housing benefit. We also intend to give local authorities a selective power to license private landlords where bad landlords and bad tenants—sometimes in collusion—are destabilising the local community.
Social housing has been at the foundation of millions of people's lives for decades. The previous Government viewed council housing as little more than an embarrassment. Their neglect of investment in social housing created misery for millions of people and deprivation for whole communities. In the Tory vision, there were two nations—home owners and those who were left behind in areas of deprivation.
We must ask why 25 per cent. of crime is concentrated in 10 per cent. of communities. The Government believe that we should have a greater mix of social housing and owner-occupied housing. People should have a real choice between buying a home and renting without a sense of stigma or snobbery. In the Green Paper, we propose to improve the quality of social housing, housing management, and lettings.
Too often in the past, social landlords have offered people a home on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. That system has failed: it often concentrates the poorest people in the poorest properties. We must design a lettings system for the 21st century if we are to support sustainable communities. We propose to give new applicants and existing tenants more say in choosing where they live. In the Green Paper, we propose pilot schemes across the country to test new approaches that put the tenant first.
The growth of homelessness over the past two decades is completely unacceptable. The previous Government took away rights from homeless people and made it harder for local councils to help them. In our election manifesto we promised to improve the safety net for those who are homeless through no fault of their own. Our proposals will ensure that homeless people are given the support that they need while they seek more permanent housing along with others in housing need on the waiting list.
In addition, we propose to extend the safety net to a wider group of homeless people, such as young people aged 16 and 17—that measure is not before time—and those who are vulnerable because they are leaving care and other institutions. Those are the people most at risk 814 of ending up on the streets without a home and without hope. Our commitment is to end the scourge of people sleeping rough. We shall also ensure that local authorities work with other agencies to prevent people from becoming homeless in the future.
The House should recognise the crucial role played by local authorities in the past in providing good homes. Over the past 100 years councils have met the housing needs of millions of people who otherwise would have been left in private sector slums. The private sector would not have met that need. Local authorities tackled the slums and the squalor and rebuilt our communities.
Local authorities are still well placed to play a dynamic role. In our Green Paper we are proposing a stronger, more forward-looking and strategic role for local authorities, in which they will identify and address housing needs across all housing in their area, in the public and private sectors.
The past 20 years have seen massive disinvestment in council housing. In our Green Paper, we set out a range of approaches to investment. We aim for a step change to ensure that all social housing is of a decent standard within 10 years. That will give us a decade to overcome the mountainous £19 billion backlog of repairs and modernisation left by the previous Government.
Stock transfer began in 1988, under the previous Administration. Since then, more than 400,000 homes have been transferred to registered social landlords, mainly housing associations. Stock transfer will continue to be the preferred approach for many authorities and their tenants, provided of course that they vote for it. We shall support the transfer of up to 200,000 homes each year from local authorities to registered social landlords. That is a matter of choice; it is not a target. We will make provision for that, but only where local authorities propose it and tenants vote for it.
A number of local authorities have asked to use the private finance initiative to increase private sector investment while maintaining ownership of their stock. We are piloting eight pathfinder schemes to find out how that approach can work best.
Some have suggested that stock transfer means the end of the local authority as landlord, and the end of the council house. We believe that there is a continuing role for council housing. Indeed, today I am announcing a new option for investment in local authority stock. Local authorities will be given new borrowing powers to invest in their housing and retain full ownership where they put their housing management in arms-length companies and demonstrate an excellent record of management through best-value inspection. There is therefore a good future for the council house.
The housing system that we inherited from the previous Government was fraught with difficulties: stigmatised social housing; a £19 billion backlog of repairs and improvements; a housing benefit system spiralling out of control; record repossessions; and a lack of choice and flexibility.
The proposals in our Green Paper can set about repairing Britain's poorest quality homes, helping first-time buyers and key workers, moving towards a fairer balance in rents and improving services. We are working hard for Britain's hard-working families. We propose help for home owners and the private sector, and we are not ashamed of that. We propose investment and 815 modernisation in social housing. A decent home is a measure of a civilised society. All in all, our proposals mean better quality, more choice and more opportunity. The system will be based not on stigma and snobbery, but on social justice, ensuring that everyone in Britain has the chance of a decent home.
§ Mr. Archie Norman (Tunbridge Wells)Once again, we have the familiar pattern of events surrounding one of the Deputy Prime Minister's announcements of policy failure. First, we read about it in the newspapers over the weekend and on Monday; then one of his Ministers appears on the "Today" programme, and then the Deputy Prime Minister appears in the House, claiming that the leaks are unauthorised and nothing to do with him.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister recall what he said after his statement on rail safety on 22 February? He said:
I ask the hon. Gentleman to believe that I did not brief on that report. I should make it clear that that is not my style; I do not play that way.—[Official Report, 22 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1378.]Does the Deputy Prime Minister recall what he said before his statement on housing in the south-east? He said:
I regret and denounce the leaks, as I have said before in the House, and I am doing all I can to prevent them.—[Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 863.]Can he confirm that he did all he could on this occasion, or is it that, as usual, circumstances are beyond his control?There are aspects of the Green Paper that we welcome: for example, the proposals for shared ownership—a Conservative proposal—and the aspirations to which the Deputy Prime Minister referred to improve social housing in Britain. I remind the House, however, that the Deputy Prime Minister came to power promising to reduce homelessness, to improve the quality of public housing stock, to cut benefit fraud and to provide more social housing. Can there be a more explicit or embarrassing example of all mouth and no delivery?
Under the Government, homelessness has risen, not fallen, by 3,000. Both capital and revenue spending on public housing has fallen. Spending on urban regeneration is lower than under the last Conservative Government. Fewer social houses, not more, are being built. There is an estimated £20 billion backlog of housing repairs. Housing benefit fraud is estimated to be at £2 billion and rising, with only a pathetic 700 successful prosecutions last year.
The Deputy Prime Minister has now confirmed in his statement that council and housing association rents are a mess after three years. Is he not embarrassed? [Interruption.] Is he not embarrassed that, after three years in government and one year before he retires to his RMT-owned flat in Clapham, all he can produce is a Green Paper for consultation? Is it not a splendid irony that it is the Deputy Prime Minister, the self-appointed guardian of the old left, who should end up starved of Treasury funding and presiding over plans finally to abolish council housing in Britain?
The Green Paper is a long shopping list of ideas for consultation. The question that the House is entitled to ask is: how much of that has been costed? Who will pay? When will the Deputy Prime Minister deliver and what will he deliver? [Interruption.]
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The House must come to order to hear these important exchanges.
§ Mr. NormanHow will the Deputy Prime Minister's widely trailed mortgage subsidies, which have been proposed in the very week that MIRAS is abolished, be funded? How much will they cost and has he agreed them with the Treasury? Is that proposal not more than a little divisive? How will the Deputy Prime Minister explain who will receive the subsidies? Is it right that a nurse in the south-east can get a home loan, but that a nurse or hospital cleaner in the north-west cannot?
Are not the Deputy Prime Minister's new proposals to make local authorities shareholders in arms-length companies just a muddled way of getting around the Treasury and of enabling councils to borrow money? Has he cleared it with the Treasury? What will it do for tenants that bulk transfers to housing associations cannot do better? Is it not the housing equivalent of the air traffic control fiasco: the worst of all possible options? Is not tinkering with the priorities for places in housing lists a poor substitute for reducing growing waiting lists in the first place?
How will hard-working families feel about being queue-jumped by released prisoners? Is that another example of a Labour Government penalising those who work hard and who do the right thing for society and for their families?
Why is it that, after three years of a Labour Government, five Labour councils have the worst record on empty council housing in Britain? One is Kingston upon Hull—the Deputy Prime Minister's own constituency. When will he deliver on any of his earlier manifesto commitments? These are basic facts. Housing investment has fallen by more than 10 per cent. since 1997. When will he increase it so that it will again reach the levels delivered by the previous Conservative Government, which he chose to deride in his statement? When will he increase the number of social houses built—which has fallen by a third since 1996, not risen—so that it will again reach the levels delivered by a Conservative Government at the end of our time in office?
In conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Wait for it. In conclusion, can the Deputy Prime Minister explain why he is still asking questions, not providing answers, after three years in government? Is not the bottom line the fact that housing policy is being sacrificed to a turf war between him and the Treasury? The Treasury has won and the Green Paper is the surrender document. Is there a single item in the consultation document that will deliver anything in the lifetime of the Government? Does it seriously pass the Kilfoyle test? On housing, is not the bitter truth that the Deputy Prime Minister will go down in history as not only a new Labour failure, but an old Labour failure as well?
§ Mr. PrescottAnother impressive performance! May I put the record straight on one fact? If one looks at the history of local authorities, of Labour government and of the building of council housing in this country, our record stands clear against that of Conservative Administrations. I well recall that, after a Labour Government built the massive housing estates after the war, a Tory Government were returned and brought in what were called the Macmillan houses, and they achieved 300,000 by 817 reducing the size and the quality of houses. Macmillan houses, such as those in my constituency, are known as ones where people bring the rubbish through the front room to take it to the dust cart. That is the reality of what Tories have done. They have never been concerned about the quality of social housing—the evidence has always been clear.
Let me address a number of points. With regard to leaks and the remarks made by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), I can only assume, and the House might accept, that if I had leaked the statement I would hardly have said that I would give priority to prisoners. That would not be the leak that I should have wanted to give to the press, but I might say that to pick on that point—[Interruption.] I would hardly do that—there are more positive things to say. With regard to the prejudice here and the extent of homelessness, let me make it clear that a third of homeless people have been in care. We have some responsibility to provide them with homes. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman may well know, some might be Tory Members of Parliament coming out of prison to whom we would want to give some consideration.
With regard to the personal matter, let me say to the hon. Gentleman that I strongly resent any implications that I did wrong concerning rents and my flat. I have done what is proper—[Interruption.] I trust that the House will listen. I have done what is proper and immediately referred the matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner to ask for advice. This rent is covered by legislation passed by a previous Tory Government. In those circumstances, it would be better if the House would at least accord me the right to wait for the report from the Parliamentary Commissioner as to whether any offence has occurred. Indeed, Members should not simply rely on press reports. Everyone should at least expect that, and I certainly expect it from the hon. Gentleman. I personally do not want to get involved in a slanging match on those matters; I make the fair point—[interruption.]—I am responding to the point made by the Opposition spokesman.
In relation to the hon. Gentleman's comments on houses, it is a bit much for an Opposition spokesman to talk about the disinvestment that took place in the social housing stock. We estimate that as about £19 billion. That occurred because the policy of the previous Tory Administration was to sell housing, while denying councils the use of the £5 billion in their accounts to improve their properties. That was especially obscene. We corrected that injustice immediately. Let us compare our investment to that of the previous Government, which was referred to in the press reports. From 1991 to the last year of their administration in 1997, under the Treasury commitments made by the Conservative Chancellor, capital investment was halved. With the £5 billion, we have doubled it since we came into office. That is the reality.
The Conservatives halved investment through that period—the figures are clear. We have doubled it. We have changed direction because we are investing in social housing, as we are committed to do. Today, we are talking about the quality of housing. That is the difference between us.
818 The policy on MIRAS was not started by us. The reduction of MIRAS and of the payments for the subsidy of mortgages for private housing were initiated by the previous Administration. Both sides of the House agreed that MIRAS had affected house prices and that it should be abolished. The former Chancellor wanted to abolish it in one go. The objective has now been achieved by both Labour and Conservative Governments. We felt that MIRAS unfairly influenced the price of houses. I believe that there was agreement on that across the House.
On local borrowing and my influence on the Treasury, I am accused, on the one hand, of having no influence with the Treasury and, on the other, of getting something from the Treasury that I should not have received. What I achieved for local authorities was the right to borrow.
Local authorities were discriminated against. Housing associations were able to borrow against their rents and assets. It was unfair that local authority tenants should be discriminated against because local authorities were not allowed to raise resources against their assets and the income stream to improve the quality of their housing. I have removed that discrimination. I have offered local authorities the opportunity to have the same advantage. That is right. I am grateful for the support of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in that matter.
That opportunity is a major and most welcome change. It will be given to those local authorities that have good management standards, achieve best value and can get on with providing good council housing. The Green Paper is a major step towards a more comprehensive approach to housing. I shall not deal with any more of the questions put by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, as they were wholly irrelevant.
§ Madam SpeakerI call Mr. Frank Dobson.
§ Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)May I welcome my right hon. Friend's Green Paper and its recognition of the problems in London, where vital workers, such as nurses and teachers, are being priced out of the city because of the rise in housing costs? I thank him for adopting my suggestion that interest-free and cheap loans for nurses and teachers would be helpful. I urge him to proceed with those proposals as quickly as possible because a large number of hard-working people in London are under severe pressure. We need those teachers and nurses; we cannot afford to lose them because they are being driven out by housing costs.
§ Mr. PrescottLike other hon. Members, I welcome my right hon. Friend to our proceedings today. I am delighted to support his election campaign. I also congratulate him on the campaign he led while he was Secretary of State for Health. That should be properly recorded. I held many discussions with him—as did many of my hon. Friends—on the new starter home initiative. His concern was especially for teachers and nurses, although I know that the issue also became important in relation to the police.
Perhaps I could point out to my right hon. Friend that I have read the South London Press, as one tends to do when one has nothing has else to read—I hope that I do not get into trouble with the South London Press. In an article dated 31 March, the newspaper quotes someone 819 complaining about the sale of homes set aside for police officers and nurses in London and it accuses the past Administration of selling off police section houses and
police estates and…good nursing accommodation.That seems to be a powerful argument, particularly when it comes from the Tory party's candidate for the mayoral election, Mr. Steven Norris.
§ Mr. Don Foster (Bath)Why the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is with us is, I suppose, beyond our Ken. However, we are delighted to see him here.
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his courtesy in letting me have advance notice of his statement. We acknowledge that the Green Paper is a consultation document and we look forward to participating in the discussions that will follow. We welcome much that is in the document: the proposals for a more flexible housing market; the speeding up of house sales; the wider definition of homelessness, which is long overdue; and the promise of action on leasehold reform.
However, we have concerns on three issues. First, although it is important to offer new powers and responsibilities to local councils, giving them those powers and responsibilities without the promise of additional resources is meaningless. They must be told how they will fund new loans, how they will have the money for increased discretionary grants and how they will make payments to home improvement agencies. The proposals will be useless unless they receive the promise of additional funding.
Secondly, I simply fail to understand why, apart from the few headline-grabbing proposals, any real reform of housing benefit has been kicked into the long grass. The Government promised us that they would take tough decisions, but on this issue, at least, they appear to have chickened out.
Thirdly, why is the Deputy Prime Minister so totally besotted with stock housing transfer? Why, in the latest proposals, will he allow councils to borrow additional money only if they are prepared to privatise their housing management systems? Surely there should be a level playing field in which housing associations and councils can borrow money on equal terms. Tenants could then choose. At present, they can choose anything that they like so long as they say yes to transfer. That is like having a pistol put to their heads.
§ Mr. PrescottI am most grateful for the warm support that the hon. Gentleman gave to the Green Paper. I hope that it will start a debate and achieve the consensus that we want. Resolving the problems will take longer than the term of any one Government. There is a desperate desire to reach consensus; the problems of housing finance, and particularly housing benefit, mean that one must achieve considerable agreement. We will achieve nothing if Governments continually seek to change policy. On housing benefits and rents, we must take a long-term view; anyone considering the problem knows that that is true. By keeping the Green Paper green, by not coming to conclusions and by holding discussions, I hope that I am able to achieve such consensus.
That does not mean that we are not doing anything. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has done much in the Department of Social Security to 820 deal with such matters. As I said earlier, it is important that we get a proper balance to deal with fraud and to improve administration. However, the real problem is with structural reform. People should recognise that and realise that it is a long-term problem involving—let us make no mistake about it—many political difficulties. We have started to make changes and we look forward to considerable debate and discussion on them.
On local authorities and stock housing, I cannot have made myself clear to the hon. Gentleman—even though I thought that I had. Ownership of the stock remains with the local authority; it is not passed over as with other stock transfers. He should bear in mind that local authorities have pushed us to take a different approach so that they can have access to resources to improve the quality of their stock after such massive disinvestment has taken place. In some cases, they are stock transfers, which were offered by the previous Administration in 1988, and PFIs have been pushed by some local authorities. I have opened a new possibility. Local authorities will keep the ownership of the assets—it is not privatisation—and they will borrow against the income and the assets.
In some local authorities—Burnley is one—the overhanging debt is too great compared with the value of the houses to obtain a private finance arrangement. We are making some changes to deal with such cases. I am offering another option—giving local authorities another opportunity. As for resources, the on-going spending review will measure the sums going into housing. A combination of a new source of borrowing and new resources resulting from the spending review will deal with the housing changes.
§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the best statement on housing since I was Minister in charge of housing in the last Labour Government. After that time, the Conservatives ended the council house building programme and caused appalling problems for owner-occupiers. My right hon. Friend is putting that right. I especially congratulate him on dealing with collusive fraud between private landlords and their tenants, which, in inner city areas such as my constituency, is a stain on housing finance.
I thank my right hon. Friend for pioneering pilot schemes and suggest that the Gorton division of Manchester would be a good place to run one. I have received strong representations from many constituents living in local authority estates saying that they want to have the right to remain council house tenants. Despite all the shortcomings that may affect council house management, council housing is accountable in a way that even Housing Corporation housing is not. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend can provide assurances for me to take back to Manchester.
§ Mr. PrescottI am grateful for my right hon. Friend's warm support: his record as a Minister in the Department of the Environment and in housing matters is so considerable that I should be grateful to leave with a similar reputation—I am working on it.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will make a bid for his area to host a pilot scheme and that he will be a powerful advocate for it. He makes an important point about tenants' rights. The first housing action trust introduced by the previous Administration was in my 821 constituency. Those who remember the debates at that time will know that the Tories took the view that tenants should have no say. However, they found that no one would take up the scheme, so when the first one was introduced in the Hull area, tenants had the right to vote; they all voted to return to local authority control.
We think that tenants' rights are important: tenants should have considerable influence over where they live, how they live and what happens to them. That is why we shall ensure that there is accountability and that none of the schemes will be introduced without tenants' agreement.
§ Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar)In chapter 11 of the Green Paper, the Deputy Prime Minister lays down seven commitments on housing benefit, all of which fall well short of its fundamental reform. Is he aware that the list bears an uncanny resemblance to a list published in Housing Today, which stated that the measures had been considered by the Government a year ago, but had been dismissed as inadequate tinkering on the fringe? How has the passage of a year turned measures that were dismissed as tinkering on the fringe into fundamental reforms of housing benefit? Is not the truth that the wheels have fallen off welfare reform?
§ Mr. PrescottThe hon. Gentleman asks me to comment on a leak and on reports of the Government's views. We do not think that our measures constitute tinkering; they make a contribution to the discussion that we shall have to have about housing benefit, and to radical change. The previous Administration introduced housing benefit and watched it increase from £2 billion to £11 billion, yet they did little to check fraud. It is important that we deal with fraud, but issues of administration, how to deal with people, how to apply the benefit and rent structure are all fundamental.
I believe that there will be fundamental reforms, once agreement is reached, but I do not kid myself that there is not a long and controversial road to be trod before we achieve that. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is tinkering, I can live with that, but I think that the measures contribute to radical change.
§ Mr. Clive Soley (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)May I express my delight that my right hon. Friend has put quality and affordability back at the top of the housing agenda, after they were removed by the Conservative party for all those years? Will he make sure that we keep mobility up there as a major priority? People want to choose the area in which they live, and they want to choose whether to rent or buy, and to interchange between the rented and purchase sectors at different stages of their life, as events dictate. I welcome the Green Paper immensely and I hope that my right hon. Friend carries it forward.
§ Mr. PrescottI thank my hon. Friend for his words of support. I well remember when he was the shadow spokesman on housing, and the emphasis that he placed on mobility and quality. However, he does himself less than justice. There is one aspect of my statement today that he should especially welcome. He was the man who made a statement, as I did supporting him, suggesting that 822 local authorities should have the right to borrow against their assets and to use their income stream to improve quality and choice in housing. He got a terrible press, and a great deal of reaction from some on our side. I am delighted to say that what I announced today has long been advocated by my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)What is the implication of the Secretary of State's borrowing proposal for the level of interest repayments on local authority debt?
§ Mr. PrescottAll our proposals, particularly in respect of borrowing requirements, depend on how far we advance. The extent of the borrowing will determine the interest rate. Once we establish that, we will be able to make a judgment. That will be taken into account when we allocate the resources available for borrowing.
§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)What improvement does my right hon. Friend expect in inner London housing as a result of the Green Paper? Although many would welcome the recognition of the need for homes for nurses, teachers and police staff, I hope that there will also be a recognition of the need for homes for people who are on a housing waiting list and who have no possibility whatever of renting privately or buying. For them, the only future is to move out. Will my right hon. Friend recognise that there is a need for local authorities to be able to buy or build, in order to alleviate the terrible housing stress and the overcrowding in which many inner-city children are growing up in London?
§ Mr. PrescottNo one can doubt my hon. Friend's analysis of the difficulties of housing in London. Most of us, who come from various parts of the United Kingdom, know that to be true. There are real difficulties. However, there are still problems with empty homes, even in his constituency. Unfortunately, that is often a result of inadequate resources being allocated to maintain standards. It should be recognised that no local authority likes to have empty houses; it is income lost. I am told that even in Tunbridge Wells there has been a 50 per cent. increase in empty houses. I do not know why that should be so—perhaps it has happened since the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) was elected or his constituents heard him at the Dispatch Box.
There are serious housing problems, but we are moving to help. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the key worker proposal. We are providing extra resources, and the £5 billion has had its effect in the London area. The waiting list remains a problem. Although housing is still the responsibility of central Government, I am sure that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is elected as London mayor, we will get together. He will have responsibility for planning, we will have responsibility for housing, and we will see what we can do together to improve the situation in London.
§ Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)The Deputy Prime Minister referred to the transfer of 200,000 houses a year. The Local Government Bill contains compelling incentives for the continuation of the transfer of existing housing stock to social landlords. Is it the 823 Government's intention to force councils to continue, even when it is not financially viable for them to do so? We have heard precious little about resources today.
§ Mr. PrescottNo, local authorities will not be forced to transfer houses. It is optional for them, and they must secure the agreement of the tenants, so there are two checks on whether they go along that road. The figure of 200,000 is not a target that we expect them to meet. We are allocating expenditure to allow them to deal with the transfer of up to 200,000 houses.
I have shown that since we came to office, we have doubled the resources available, and I hope for more resources from the spending review. The money that we have put in and the changes that we are making will considerably improve housing and will ensure that many of the decisions must be agreed between the local authority and the tenants.
§ Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park and Kensington, North)May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a wide-ranging and genuinely exciting set of housing options? I was particularly pleased to hear him refer to changes in the allocation procedure, which will introduce choice and flexibility to people who are often totally disempowered by the present process. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the investment in additional social housing is critical, particularly in London, where we currently house 40,000 families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Can we build on the success of the rough sleepers initiative, so that under a Labour Government we will end the scandal of children growing up in bed-and-breakfast accommodation?
§ Mr. PrescottMy hon. Friend's view is consistent with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said about children and homelessness. I very much agree with her remarks about tenants having choice. Most of us who have dealt with the points system with our various councils understand it to be fair, but it is discriminatory. It leaves many people dissatisfied with the system. We are trying to improve choice so that the tenant feels part of the system and not that he is being told to take it or leave it, which has undermined a great deal of public housing.
I take my hon. Friend's point that the amount of investment in social housing in London is critical. Apart from the provision of housing, we look for social housing and mixed development in new development sites. I am delighted that 20 per cent. of the millennium village concept that we are developing at Greenwich will be affordable housing.
§ Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)Will the Deputy Prime Minister say a little more about housing benefit reform, into which a Select Committee is conducting a comprehensive inquiry? He said that this reform is the greenest part of his statement. When does he expect to come to a conclusion on the matter? He must accept that the present system distorts the market, as he has said so. I detected the hand of 10 Downing street in the lauding of the market heard in the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Is he prepared to consider fundamental reforms such as giving help to tenants so that they can shop around 824 rather than giving help and subsidies direct to the landlord? These will be fundamental reforms, but we need decisions quite soon.
§ Mr. PrescottMany of the proposals in the Green Paper cover some of the points to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Anyone who has had to consider housing benefit and structural rents will realise that they raise complex issues. I have suggested before that, if we make adjustments to rents and housing benefit and to all the issues that would flow from that, there would be gainers and losers. That is my answer to those who ask, "How long will it take?" We must ensure that the period of transition during which change is introduced will be fair to all concerned. Fundamental changes will not come overnight. We want consensus. As I have said, the hon. Gentleman's proposals are mentioned in the Green Paper.
§ Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate)May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on approaching housing, or rather the lack of it, in such an imaginative and practical way? I congratulate him also on acknowledging that housing, be it public or private, is a national asset and that the nation must work to maintain it. At the same time, he has restated firmly and comprehensively Labour's commitment to social housing.
In central London, there is an increasing problem in the private sector, where exploitative landlords are increasing their rents year on year. Elderly and frail people, whose incomings are frozen, see their outgoings increasing every year. I hope that my right hon. Friend will address this issue with some speed. I follow the example of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in making a plea for a pilot private finance initiative for the Chalcot estate in my constituency.
§ Mr. PrescottI hear what my hon. Friend says about special pleading. Presumably there must be proposed measures in the Green Paper that are welcome, and I am delighted that that is so. I wish my hon. Friend good luck with the application.
I think that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that housing is a national asset. We must have housing policies. Governments have been actively involved in the housing programme, with a commitment especially to social housing. However, there is clearly a difference between the parties in the priorities that we deploy in dealing with social housing, as we have seen today.
There is a major problem with the private sector and exploitative landlords. There are very good landlords but there are also bad ones, who get a great deal of publicity. We want to deal with them because we do not think that they are fair. As is mentioned in the Green Paper, sometimes bad landlords act in collusion with tenants. That undermines good will and good policy, and in some cases it is clearly fraudulent and criminal. We shall take whatever action we can to prevent it.
§ Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)Does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise that some of the worst areas in terms of the housing affordability gap are those where there is a disproportionate number of second homes that create an artificial market, such as Cornwall and the lake 825 district, where there are ghost villages in winter and where it is entirely uneconomic for the people to whom he has referred to buy or rent at the prices that prevail? May I ask him to review, as part of the consultation process, the opportunities that he can give local authorities to tackle the problem?
§ Mr. PrescottYes, I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. There are difficulties. We have already made a start on 50 per cent. of the empty homes in our towns and cities. My colleague said at Question Time that we are considering the point that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has made.
The provision of housing in rural areas is an important issue. I recently visited one of the dale areas. A farmer complained that he wanted to convert a farm into two or three houses for local residents but was prevented by the planning authority's requirements, simply because he apparently said—I do not know whether it is true—that people would live in the houses and hang their washing on the line, and that a road would have to built. We must change such attitudes, because some rural areas as well as some urban areas suffer genuine problems. Housing is equally important in rural and urban areas.
§ Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)I welcome the Green Paper that my right hon. Friend introduced this afternoon. I represent a constituency that contains 3,000 older empty terraced houses, and I urge my right hon. Friend to acknowledge the wide variation of housing problems in various parts of the country. We must ensure that our policy is flexible. I also urge him to press the Treasury to look again at reducing VAT on housing repairs and renovation, because that would do a lot for areas with older housing stock, which cannot be renovated because people cannot afford it.
§ Mr. PrescottI thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I acknowledge the problem of the variation in housing in all our cities. I can recall the housing to which my hon. Friend refers from my visits to Burnley. The Green Paper tries to deal with all the different sorts of properties. Our policy is about homes for all, whether in the public or the private sector.
My hon. Friend's second point, about VAT, was a recommendation of Lord Rogers. We have considered whether the fiscal framework can assist in such programmes. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in the Budget statement that he wants to consider the way in which the fiscal framework can help. The matter is not a complete write-off; we are continuing to consider it. I bear in mind Lord Rogers' recommendations in his urban regeneration report, which I commissioned.
My hon. Friend made two points; he could have made a third. We have agreed a settlement on overhanging debt to help Burnley to tackle its housing problems.
§ Ms Margaret Moran (Luton, South)As a former housing association director and chair of a housing committee, I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to end the illogical investment rules for housing 826 associations and local authorities. It gives local authorities a genuine opportunity to use investment to tackle housing need in their areas.
What plans has my right hon. Friend to deal with the problem of the differences in rents between housing associations and local authorities and between regions? Often, similar properties have widely varying rents regardless of their condition. How does my right hon. Friend intend to tackle that and thus facilitate the provision of more choice for our tenants and residents, and end the scandal of the massive increases in council and housing association rents which happened under the previous Government?
§ Mr. PrescottI thank my hon. Friend for her supportive remarks. I readily acknowledge her active part in housing. As she said, the local authority changes should have happened a long time ago. I am delighted to end that discrimination and place faith in local authorities to begin to build good quality houses in the public sector.
My hon. Friend's other important point is covered in the Green Paper. It is amazing to consider the different rent structures not only between local authorities and housing corporations but for the same sort of house in different local authority areas. The differences between regions are a genuine problem. We acknowledge that there must be a social rent that is below the market rent, but we need to establish uniform principles that apply to the rent structure. Tackling that would have consequential effects on housing benefit and on the role of housing finance to which we are committed in the Green Paper.
§ Ms Oona King (Bethnal Green and Bow)I too welcome the Green Paper and the way in which it moves housing further up the agenda. Did the Deputy Prime Minister share some of my incredulity when listening to the remarks of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on the key workers scheme? He suggested that he could not perceive a difference between people in different parts of the country. However, in the north of England, nurses who earn £14,000 may be able to buy a four-bedroomed terraced house for £10,000. Meanwhile, a house in Tower Hamlets in my constituency has just gone for £500,000.
In the light of that, will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that help will also go to other vital workers, such as hospital porters, cleaners and waste collectors, so that people living in areas with high increases in house prices get a chance to have a decent house and a roof over their head?
§ Mr. PrescottI thank my hon. Friend for her warm words of support. She makes a powerful point about key workers. The proposal covers not only those workers whom I have mentioned, but people who are in difficult circumstances in areas of high-cost housing, which are not necessarily limited to London and the south-east. There are various key workers, such as hospital porters, nurses and teachers. We will leave local authorities and the appropriate bodies to make a judgment. We must clearly address that problem.
Key workers are an essential part of the programme; important workers need housing. However, I shall resist saying what I was going to add.
§ Madam SpeakerIn that case, I shall resist calling any more questions.