§ 7. Mr. Christopher Fraser (Mid-Dorset and North Poole)What estimate his Department has made of the increase in the number of single person households over the next 20 years. [116148]
§ The Minister for Housing and Planning(Mr. Nick Raynsford)The latest, 1996-based, household projections suggest a net increase of 3.12 million households in England over the 20-year period from 1996 to 2016. Of these 2.13 million, some two thirds of the total, will be made up of one person living by him or herself.
§ Mr. FraserWith those figures in mind, does the Minister agree with me that local people should determine their local housing requirements rather than the Government setting arbitrary figures? What consultation has he had with Purbeck district council, which has written to me today, and with Poole and East Dorset district councils in my constituency, about this matter? Without consultation, the Government's proposals mean the wrong houses for the wrong people in the wrong places.
§ Mr. RaynsfordThe hon. Gentleman will be aware that the regional planning guidance for the south-west is undergoing examination in public. Clearly it would not be proper for me to respond on a detailed point, which will come to us for decision after the examination in public.
The hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. It is important to ensure that there is provision for people in need, and a high proportion of need comes from the sons and daughters of people who live in the area, who want to continue to live there. Older people, the largest proportion of single people, now expect to have independent homes in their old age. That is another area of need. It would be a serious disservice to the needs of single people, either young or old, if no housing provision were to be made for them in their area. Regional planning guidance is an appropriate framework in which the necessary need can be identified and from which recommendations can be brought forward for individual counties.
§ Mr. Geraint Davies (Croydon, Central)Is my hon. Friend in dialogue with the Treasury over possible fiscal opportunities to reduce the proportion of single-person households, especially in respect of housing benefit rules that encourage adult children to leave home prematurely and in terms of taxes on second homes, equal VAT treatment for both conversion and new build, and multi-occupancy incentives for retired people, for example? Will my hon. Friend consider a portfolio of possible fiscal measures to encourage higher levels of occupancy?
§ Mr. RaynsfordMy hon. Friend raises a number of matters that will be expanded on by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister when we come to the statement on the housing Green Paper. It is integral to our 799 entire approach that we ensure that we create a planning framework that allows mixed and balanced communities in which single people can live side by side with families. We do not intend to repeat the mistakes of the past—of social stratification, with areas of exclusively large executive houses on one side and social housing on the other. We want mixed and balanced communities that will allow adequate provision for single people.
§ Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden)If the Minister's figures are correct and the bulk of new housing is needed for single-person households, will he reconsider the decision to build 10,000 houses on the green belt in my constituency, given that little of that housing will be suitable, either in type or in location, for single people?
§ Mr. RaynsfordThe right hon. Gentleman sounds rather like a gramophone record on this subject. He shows an inability to understand the basic framework on which Hertfordshire county council came forward with its proposals. He will know that there are no detailed plans at this stage for the composition of the housing stock and the proportions that will be single-person units, family units, and units suitable for the elderly. The right hon. Gentleman's ridiculous suggestion reveals something—the attitude of mind that was characteristic of the Conservative Government he served, under whom executive homes were encouraged to proliferate throughout the greenfield land in the south-east. We are ending that nonsense, for which the previous Government were responsible.
§ Mr. Damian Green (Ashford)The Minister seems not to realise that his answer to this question wrecks the case that he made in answer to the previous question. Does he not accept that, on the basis of the Government's household projection figures, more than two thirds of the homes that are needed are required for single and mainly elderly people? His plans to build tens of thousands more homes than local authorities say they need will inevitably encourage developers to build more profitable three or four-bedroomed homes, which are just what single-person households do not need. Will the Minister not acknowledge that his policy attracts working-age people out of inner cities, threatens our green fields and ensures that, as long as he is in charge, we will continue building the wrong houses in the wrong places?
§ Mr. RaynsfordI am sorry that the hon. Gentleman clearly prepared his answer before hearing my reply to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies). I made it clear that we are not following Conservative party policy, which encouraged the proliferation of three and four-bedroomed executive homes.
We are specifically encouraging the development of more mixed communities. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) knows that we are encouraging more suitable provision, which allows higher densities, of houses for single people and families. The Greenwich millennium village is a good example of good-quality new housing at a high density of 80 people to the hectare. It incorporates social housing and housing for sale; housing for single 800 people and housing for families. It is an excellent example of the mixed development that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is pioneering, not before time.