| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Geoffrey Hoon (Ashfield) : Is not the central dilemma facing the Foreign Secretary that he states that the incorporation of the exemption is desirable but then states that the passing of amendment No. 27 would not have any effect? If I understand the matter correctly, the right hon. Gentleman has said that it is necessary for tidying-up purposes to incorporate the social protocol into United Kingdom law. Is not the reason for that to ensure that if a United Kingdom citizen took a case based on the social protocol before the European Court of Justice, he or she would be met by a defence in British law, namely, that we had already legislated by means of the exemption? Is not the right hon. Gentleman's version of the legal position now creating still further uncertainty for the future?
Mr. Hurd : The legal advice is clear, and I have already given it. As a normal course of events, we seek to make the description of these clauses comprehensive. That is desirable for the sake of tidiness and completeness. The question is whether that consideration--it is the one that the hon. Gentleman is talking about--implies or constitutes necessity. The advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is that it does not.
Sir Cranley Onslow (Woking) : Will my right Friend confirm for the benefit of any hon. Member who may have thought that by voting for amendment No. 27 he or she could effectively destroy the Maastricht treaty that that fox has now been shot?
Mr. Hurd : The effect of the amendment would not be negligible. On that score the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) was wrong. It would be that the protocol would not be incorporated in domestic law. It would not have any wider reach than that.
Column 34
Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney) : Is not this entire business a shambles and a farce that sheds great discredit upon Foreign Office Ministers and the Law Officers? The House is entitled to have proper and up-to-date legal advice. That is something for which we have asked and which we have been denied on several occasions during our consideration of the Bill.
What is the consequence of what the Foreign Secretary has discovered? A few days ago he gave the clear impression during an interview on the radio that there would be serious trouble if amendment No. 27 was agreed to. He gave the impression that he was prepared to use the prerogative power to prevent that. The storm that followed has led the right hon. Gentleman to have an emergency meeting with the Law Officers and others. The fifth cavalry has come to the rescue with a new version of the meaning that would follow from the passage of amendment No. 27. Are we not in the most ridiculous position of having, late in the day, one Law Officer's explanation when we could easily get other explanations at later stages of the Bill?
Mr. Hurd : The right hon. Gentleman is not being fair. I shall send him the transcript of what I said in the broadcast. Although I was tempted to do so, I deliberately and specifically did not enter into the legal thicket because I had not received my right hon. and learned Friend's advice. I spoke on matters of substance, which I have repeated today. I stated our objections to the social chapter and our intention to ratify the treaty as we signed it. It would not have been right to have given the particulars of my right hon. and learned Friend's advice to any of the media before informing the House today, which we have done. I asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General for his advice substantially before last week.
Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East) : I thank my right hon. Friend for again reiterating the primordial sovereignty of the House in making such decisions. In relation to the question of the my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who suggested that the Maastricht treaty should be consigned to the dustbin of history, will my right hon. Friend remind the House that 10 countries have ratified the treaty and that Denmark is about to do so with a significant majority? Should not the House proceed with the Bill as quickly as possible?
Mr. Hurd : I agree that that is the position, and that it is for this House to decide such matters. We have made a mistake, which I have acknowledged. However, the Labour party has also made a mistake in tabling an amendment that it supposed would put us in the predicament that has been described. It does not.
Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli) : The Foreign Secretary said that the present legal opinion is that the protocol on the social chapter does not create rights or impose obligations on the United Kingdom and its domestic law, and that therefore it does not have to be incorporated into domestic law. Surely there must be other articles, protocols and declarations of the Maastricht treaty which are in exactly the same position. Will the right hon. Gentleman publish a list of those in Hansard so that we may know what they are? In particular, will he confirm that all articles and so on leading to stage 3 of economic and monetary union are in exactly that category?
Column 35
Mr. Hurd : The Committee will come to those matters point by point. I said--and the right hon. Gentleman was listening--that there are two sorts of amendment to the Bill. The Government have, of necessity, to defeat one sort if we are to ratify the treaty, because they affect the treaty. The other sort does not affect the treaty, but we may still wish to resist such amendments on grounds that are discussed and debated in the House. I gave as an example the composition of the Committee of the Regions. On the question of stage 3, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the protocol involved is quite different and, unless it is accepted and incorporated, the opt-out negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would not have effect and the obligations of stage 3 would be imposed upon us. That protocol is in a different position from that pertaining to amendment No. 27.
Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while the Opposition are playing ducks and drakes with the Bill, large and small businesses throughout the country are having to make commercial judgments that will affect both employment opportunities and the prosperity of the United Kingdom? Businesses wishing to come to this country to invest are also affected. My right hon. Friend's announcement today will be most welcome to the business sector.
Mr. Hurd : There is a strong feeling that we need to get on with the Bill. The House has quite rightly been given--indeed, it has taken-- substantial time to consider the Bill. At the end of a very detailed and long consideration the House will make a decision on Third Reading whether to pass the Bill and thus enable the Government to ratify the treaty. It is very much in the national interest that that should happen.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many of the opponents of closer European union argue very much about the democratic deficit between the institutions of Europe and this place? Does he not accept that his Government have today exposed a democratic deficit between the Executive and the legislature? Even if we voted in favour of the principle of the social chapter, the Government would still say no. Does not that mean that the concept of parliamentary sovereignty has been undermined once and for all? Would it not be better, therefore, to accept the Scottish constitutional legal position and to put the whole issue to the people in a referendum, with the option of including the social chapter?
Mr. Hurd : The Committee may have an opportunity to consider the hon. Lady's suggestion before long. That is another example of a matter that must be debated in its own terms. The hon. Lady's premise is wrong, however : if carried, amendment No. 27 would not impose the social chapter on the country, and she does the cause of democracy and orderly debate no good by claiming that it would.
Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) : In view of the various strands that the Foreign Secretary seems to have identified in terms of legal advice, how can we be certain of any of the legal advice given to the Government in respect of any of the clauses and other provisions that we have discussed?
Column 36
Mr. Hurd : That question has already been asked, and I have already answered it. I have mentioned the willingness of Law Officers to be present in Committee to answer points of legal importance that are addressed to them.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Why does not the Foreign Secretary admit that, in the course of the past few days, the Government have been scared in losing a very important vote inside Parliament, which has debated the Bill line by line and clause by clause? Over the years, most of us have been told that, when a Government debating an issue are defeated on an amendment, they must accept it in principle. If the amendment has not been worded correctly, it is the Government's job to ensure that it is.
The Foreign Secretary is now saying, "We do not like the idea of losing in Parliament, so we are going to move the goalposts and rig the system. We are going to tell the British people that Parliament does not matter as far as we are concerned, and that we are going to go to higher authorities"--a gang of lawyers who can give the Government advice, provided that they have enough money to hand out. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.
Mr. Hurd : The hon. Gentleman knows better than that. His is artificial indignation, as the whole House can tell. He knows what the amendment says and what it does not say. He knows that, if the amendment is carried, it will not impose the social chapter on this country ; and he knows that, at the end of the day--although he will be in the minority--it will be for the House to decide whether to approve the Bill and ratify the treaty. That is the essence of parliamentary sovereignty.
In this country, we have a more detailed system of examination. By the time that we reach Third Reading, the House--or, at any rate, those who, like the hon. Gentleman, are particularly interested--will have spent day after day weighing up the matter. Ultimately, however, Parliament will decide-- not the royal prerogative, the Executive or the lawyers.
Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North) : Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the country's European and social policy should be determined on sound principles such as those employed by Baroness Thatcher when she introduced the Single European Act--the Government have followed them ever since-- rather than on technical manoeuvring of the kind employed by the Opposition and a few little Englanders on the Conservative Benches?
Mr. Hurd : I agree. We accept that there is a social dimension to the life of the Community, and we have a better record than most in going along with what has already been agreed. We believe, however, that the extension of that dimension that is implied in the social chapter is harmful--or, rather, would be harmful--to growth and jobs in this country. That is why we shall continue with our policy of resisting it.
Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West) : Is the Secretary of State aware that a very worrying air of incompetence is emanating from the Treasury Bench over this whole affair? Does he agree that that incompetence is causing a very worrying threat to the passage of the Bill and the ratification of the treaty, something about which some of us, who have spent many hours on the Bill, feel very concerned? In addition, some of us, who have spent a lot of time on the clauses, and in particular on
Column 37
amendment No. 27, feel very annoyed that we seem to have been wasting our time because of the Government's inability to get their act together. Why were not the Law Officers called in to make a statement to the House before now?Mr. Hurd : This debate arises not from a Government amendment but from one tabled by the official Opposition, on a basis clearly set out by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) at the beginning but which has proved to be, to use the hon. Gentleman's phrase, incompetent. I am not resiling from the regret that I have already expressed ; I am willing to repeat it. I am also willing to repeat my wish that the Law Officers had been invoked earlier. But that is the position, and the position is now clear.
Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher) : Will my right hon. Friend note that those who asked for legal advice, having got it, do not like it? That is because they were hoping to enforce the social chapter on this country through this initiative--if you like, through the back Delors. Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Opposition will now withdraw it? Many of those who put their names to this effort, particularly those in the Labour party and the Liberal party, claim to be positive Europeans, whereas those on this side of the House who argued for the amendment are anti-Community through and through.
Mr. Hurd : My hon. Friend makes a fair summary of the political points.
Dr. Cunningham : We tabled amendment No. 27 10 months ago. For 10 months, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Secretary of State for Employment, the Minister of State--the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones)--and the Home Secretary--indeed, almost every member of the Cabinet--accepted our interpretation of the amendment, yet suddenly, when the Government apparently face defeat after so many Ministers so frequently have been so wrong, a new legal opinion appears. Is not that very convenient for the right hon. Gentleman? Outside this House, however, people will conclude yet again that, when this Government govern, expediency is the rule of the day and priniple is nowhere to be seen.
Mr. Hurd : The hon Gentleman is understandably nettled because the amendment that he tabled is--and I use the phrase in its legal sense-- incompetent. I have explained the background and the sequence of events. I have also explained that, some time ago, but after 27 January, it seemed to me to be necessary to ask for the advice of the Law Officers. That has recently arrived and I have immediately communicated it to the House. The result of that advice is perfectly clear : that the amendment, if carried, would prevent the incorporation of the protocol in the domestic legislation of the House, and that would be its full scope.
Column 38
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At the beginning of the statement you drew a distinction between the proceedings in a Committee of the whole House and the proceedings of the House. Obviously the House appreciated your advice. While it is perfectly true that the matter that we have been discussing in the House is being considered in a Committee of the whole House, would you care to reflect upon the fact that the House, in another shape, has been given conflicting advice? In those circumstances, I suggest that there is a need for the
Attorney-General, as the senior Law Officer, to come before the House, not the Committee, and make a statement.
I would simply say in passing, and in conclusion, that this is a matter of significant importance to Parliament, to our rights and to our sovereignty. I do not believe that it is sufficient simply to say, as may well be said, that there will be a statement in Committee. This is a matter for the whole House sitting as a House, and not as a Committee. I invite you, Madam Speaker, to reflect on that with the advice of the Clerks. We should, at the first opportunity, have a statement from the Attorney-General.
Madam Speaker : As the House knows, and as the hon. Gentleman appreciates, that is not a point of order for the Chair. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. All I can say to the House is that the Treasury Bench has heard the hon. Gentleman's request. We must leave it at that for the time being.
Several hon. Members rose--
Madam Speaker : Order. There can be no further points of order on that matter because I have just dealt with it. If there are different points of order, of course I must take them.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : On a different point of order, although on a similar argument, there is a Scottish situation--
Madam Speaker : Order. Will the hon. Gentleman resume his seat? What he is saying is that his point of order is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Salmond : It is a point of order for the Chair.
Madam Speaker : If it is a point of order for the Chair, I will hear the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Salmond : I know that you, Madam Speaker, are anxious to protect the rights of Scottish Members and will be aware of the Scottish aspect, which the Government should also hear.
Mr. Salmond : There are different Law Officers for Scotland.
Madam Speaker : Of course. I recognise that and that is why I was so concerned to ensure that a member of the Scottish National party was called during today's statement.
Column 39
Housing
4.40 pm
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) : I beg to move, That this House is alarmed by reports from all areas of the United Kingdom regarding the acute shortage of low cost housing available for rent or for purchase under all systems of tenure or ownership ; calls on the Government to provide urgently for the release of capital receipts derived from the sale of council property from all previous financial years for housing investment both directly by local authorities and by partnership schemes and for links to be established between agencies providing housing, health and social care to ensure that provision is made for all people in need ; and further calls on the Government to ensure that people have the right to decent and appropriate conditions including facilities for the disabled.
It is perhaps a pity that such an important debate on matters relating to housing has been delayed due to the farce that we have just seen. If the Government had got their act together, we would have had another 45 minutes to deal with this very important subject.
It is easy to fall into the trap of suggesting that problems in one's own constituency are unique. I had no idea of the scale of the housing crisis facing this country outside my area of the north-west of England until I compared notes with my colleagues. If we want to begin to tackle the problems, we do not need the Government's laid back approach of "It'll be all right on the night" ; we need radical action from the Government. I will refer in detail to my constituency to give the House a flavour of the problems in one constituency which is by no means the worst off in the land, but by no means the best off.
My constituency comprises part of the borough of Ellesmere Port and Neston and part of the council area of the city of Chester. Some 10, 000 electors live in the latter part. There are 4,500 people on the housing waiting list in the borough of Ellesmere Port and Neston and 5,000 in the city of Chester area.
I want to examine the facts in some detail and I hope that that will demonstrate to the House that the problem lies not with local authorities, private landlords, housing associations or the owner-occupied sector, but right here with the Government. The problem is their failure to recognise the importance of the links between the breakdown in the economy generally and the growing crisis in housing.
In the rural Chester area, the council has undertaken a major survey to determine the extent of rural housing need. The results of two pilot surveys show an under-estimation of need in respect of the housing waiting list. There is a substantial level of requests for rented accommodation in preference to owner-occupation.
In its 1992 report, the Rural Development Commission highlighted the problems and cited Chester as a case study. The report refers to the low average wage of often less than £3 an hour--against a background of the Government wanting to abolish the wages councils--and the average private rent of £63 a week. The report also refers to other difficulties in respect of trying to resolve the problem in rural areas. Thirty seven per cent. of Chester's rural council housing stock has been sold off. With a rural turnover of 6 per cent., which is substantially less than the urban area, there is a real problem.
Since April 1989, there has been a 25 per cent. increase in the housing waiting list in the borough of Ellesmere Port
Column 40
and Neston, from 3,276 to 4,492. As bad as that figure is, it hides the real problem which is the time that people have to wait in order to be housed. I will refer to harsh statistics to illustrate my points and I ask hon. Members, many of whom on the Conservative Benches live in relative opulence, to think carefully about what the figures mean.With regard to the increase in the housing waiting list from 3,276 to 4,492, in April 1987, a family with one child had to wait just one month in Ellesmere Port and Neston on average to obtain council accommodation. That reflects a well-run Labour-controlled authority of which there are many up and down the land. Regrettably, as a result of the Government's policies, that waiting time has increased to 42 months--
Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Gedling) : Well run?
Mr. Miller : The Government Whip may criticise that point from a sedentary position, but I challenge anyone to criticise the authority which has managed its housing stock extremely well. The Government are responsible for the increase in waiting time to 42 months. The main contributory factors to the increase in waiting lists are constraints on new build, the effects of the poll tax, stress related to family breakdown, unemployment and repossessions. After 14 years of Tory trial and error, one would have thought that the Tories would have got it right ; but no, the problems continue. It is the public's trial based on Tory errors.
In this month's House Builder magazine, the Chancellor of the Exchequer displays an awe-inspiring ignorance. Under the headline, which I found difficult to believe,
"The Government's done its bit",
the Chancellor argues that the housing market can look after itself after his autumn statement. What complacent drivel. Having set out what is so obviously a flawed argument, he concludes :
"the Government cannot underwrite the housing market ; nor can it insulate the building and construction trades from the economic cycle."
When the Prime Minister eventually realises that the Chancellor just is not up to the job, I suggest that he looks at the cartoon linked to that article in which the Chancellor is pointing to building workers saying, "Gentlemen, over to you." Yes, any one of them could do a better job than the present incumbent. Any one of them could demonstrate the clear links between the state of the economy and the construction industry. Any one of them could tell the Chancellor that his autumn statement was just a drop in the ocean. Any one of them would have more concern for the needs of the homeless and people living in inadequate accommodation than the Chancellor.
Mr. Charles Hendry (High Peak) : As the hon. Gentleman referred to the autumn statement, is he aware that the £577 million allocated to housing associations has already led to 11,000 houses being brought back into use by housing associations?
Mr. Miller : The hon. Gentleman is somewhat premature : that has not happened. If he waits a little longer, he will hear my economic analysis and I hope that he will then appreciate that the scale of the problem is much greater than has been suggested. If the Chancellor spent less time evicting his own tenants and more time thinking about the nation's economic plight, perhaps he would really start to understand what is happening.
Column 41
In the House Builder , under the byline "Absent jury", the president of the House-Builders Federation, Mr. Tony Hillier, states :"Clearly, the economy dominates all. The slump in the housing market is inextricably linked to the continued failure of the general economy to move out of recession. The jury is still out on whether the Chancellor's Autumn Statement was sufficient to stimulate the economy into decisive action. The Government clearly does not believe that a recovery in housing is a pre- condition for recovery in the wider economy, and we at the HBF have suspended judgment to see who is right."
People at the HBF obviously believe one thing and the Government believe another. He went on to say :
"When I took chemistry A' level, many years ago, I grappled with molecular theory"--
I was attracted by that statement, because I grappled with molecular theory as well--
"which taught me that life was made up of various sub-atomic particles-- protons, electrons and neutrons. In my journey through life I have since discovered a further particle, which seems to be the main building block of life : that is, of course, the moron. It seems to me that it is this particular particle which generates much of the housing policy of the DOE and other Government departments."
I could not put it better myself. Mr. Hillier's knighthood obviously goes down the Swanee.
My staff have been talking to local estate agents. I thank the estate agents who took part in my little survey. It was particularly important because it was an attempt to put into perspective some parts of the problem that we face. I shall describe to the House some of the anecdotal comments that came from estate agents. The first said :
"Not wonderful--not very good at all!"
She said that things picked up after the new year but fell again and that if interest rates stayed down they would improve. According to that estate agent, it is basically supply and demand. She has many properties on her books without chains but they are not moving either. Property prices are down by 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. in the past two years. The second estate agent said :
"There are positive signs of improvement this year, busier than last year."
Although there are more properties on the market, they are not selling any more. Lots of people appear to be waiting for interest rates to fall again. When the market picks up and house prices are realistic, they should sell. Another estate agent said that last year was the worst year on record. Prices dropped by 10 per cent. That estate agent was a little more encouraged by the beginning of 1993, but he said that that
"could be wiped out by a rise in interest rates and local employment setbacks."
The importance of that for the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Gedling) is that, according to the estate agents to whom I have spoken, there are direct links between the general economic situation and the needs of the housing industry. Another estate agent said that redundancy worries and possible job loss are more important than keeping the brake on interest rates. The general links are clearly seen by estate agents.
As the House can see, estate agents' views are not all necessarily bleak in respect of the owner-occupied sector. But, even if one were to take the most optimistic of those comments, unless the supply side is addressed in terms of the low-cost end of the market, there can be no solution. We simply have too few houses to meet the nation's need for housing of a decent standard. Add to that the problems of negative equity and the problems in the private sector
Column 42
start to become even more clear. Negative equity more than doubled last year to £2.68 billion. Also, 27 per cent. of people buying the cheapest property have negative equity. If this year's fall in house prices continues, by the end of the year negative equity will double.A resolution of the issue of confidence raised by the agents to whom I referred will occur only when the economy gets back on the move. Of course, most people bar the Chancellor think that a house-building programme that targets the low-cost sector would have an early impact on confidence. In turn, that would provide an incentive to the marketplace and take pressure off local authorities by increasing interest elsewhere in the spectrum, and remove or at least reduce the number of repossessions. In turn, the chain reaction would release precious resources which could be used to address many other pressing social problems. The formula is quite straightforward and simple.
Examples of how the system has gone wrong can be seen throughout the country. The Minister for Housing and Planning recently suggested that mandatory renovation grants might be abandoned entirely due to the financial pressures that they are placing on local authorities. Although financial pressures on councils are undoubtedly increasing, such a step would be extremely short-sighted. It would accelerate deterioration of the housing stock, affect the most vulnerable groups in society and reduce the supply of housing.
As hon. Members know, housing capital finance is an extremely complex subject. Capital expenditure can be derived from three sources : first, permission to borrow money ; secondly, housing capital receipts ; and, thirdly, rent income. The Government issue a basic credit approval which covers all council activity, not just housing. However, they do that in stages to make it appear that capital allocation is being made specifically for housing. The first stage is the announcement of the housing investment programme allocation. That in itself does not confer permission to borrow, but it is the Government's assessment of what a council needs to spend on its capital works.
I shall set out in careful detail the next part of my argument because it shows the anomaly between the way the Government manipulate the figures and the real facts facing local authorities. In the case of my local authority, the "receipts taken into account" figure significantly increased in 1993- 94. That represents central Government's assessment of the council's ability to finance capital expenditure from usable capital receipts. The figure is based on actual usable capital receipts as at 31 March 1992, plus an estimate of the likely usable receipts that will be generated in 1992- 93. However, the latter figure is modified as though the relaxation on capital receipts rules that was announced in the Chancellor's autumn statement had applied from 1 April, which of course it did not. For Ellesmere Port and Neston, matters have been made worse by the fact that the council received a one-off windfall capital receipt of more than £3 million before13 November 1992. Therefore, although it was able to use only 50 per cent. of that money, the Government treated it as 100 per cent. usable. That was a general fund capital receipt, not a housing capital receipt. Moreover, the Government have made the assumption that that represents the typical usable capital receipts during the year and therefore the figure has been projected to 1993-94. The effects of that perverse methodology in
Column 43
calculating receipts taken into account is that in 1993-94 the housing capital programme will lose credit approvals amounting to £793,000, which actually relates to general fund capital receipts, half of which the council is not allowed to use anyway.By comparison, it is estimated that additional usable housing capital receipts released as a result of the Chancellor's autumn statement are £280,000 in 1992-93 and £572,250 in 1993-94. Against that, the amount of set-aside capital receipts--the amount of capital receipts which the council owns but is not allowed to spend--is approximately £11.5 million. That logic is perverse and must be changed.
Mr. Nick Raynsford (Greenwich) : My hon. Friend rightly highlighted the perverse logic of the Government in their attitude to capital receipts. Is my hon. Friend aware of the even more perverse position of the Minister of Housing ten years ago--he was a junior housing Minister at that time-- when he was advocating the use of all accumulated capital receipts as absolutely essential for the housing programme? That is an extraordinary inconsistency on the part of the Government who now claim that they cannot release the £5 billion which is available and would make such an enormous difference in meeting housing needs.
Mr. Miller : I bow to my hon. Friend's knowledge and expertise in the field of housing. I agree with him wholeheartedly that not only my small detailed example but the whole logic of the Government's position is perverse.
This morning, I received a letter from the Maritime Housing Association which set out the difficulties that the association faces. Maritime housing is an area supposedly being helped by the current Administration. The association wrote to me on behalf of all members of the committee of management to express concern about the level of average housing association grants for rental schemes which is projected for 1994-95 and 1995-96. A small housing association is expressing that view. It has written to all Members of Parliament in the greater Merseyside area. I hope that the Minister will take on board the points which have been made. We face serious issues. The House Builder is not a left-wing tract as far as I am aware. In that magazine, the Minister for Housing and Planning takes a marginally more enlightened view on which I congratulate him. He says,
"There can be no doubt that the issues surrounding Housing are among the most important facing us today."
When I first read that statement I thought that the Minister had seen the light and was on his way to Damascus. He continued by saying--[H on. Members :-- "He does not know where it is."] He does not know where the article is, either. He continued by saying, and I think that it is a quote from the Department of the Environment's annual report :
"The Government's aim is to ensure that a decent home is within the reach of every family whether it is owned by them, rented from private or social landlords or part owned and part rented." He then goes on to promote a series of solutions, some of which I would go along with. However, the problem is his
Column 44
failure to distance himself from that wretched Chancellor and recognise the scale of the problem facing the country. He said that his package is"to provide a kick start"--
Labour Members were criticised for using "kick start" during the election--
"to the depressed housing market, while at the same time providing some additional 20,000 social homes this year."
I have to say to the Minister that that simply is not enough. His logic and financial methodology are suspect in the extreme. Earlier, I accused the Minister of underestimating the scale. Why did he do that? He did it simply because, with all the expertise at his fingertips, he is satisfied with a target figure of 20,000. The Institute of Housing says that the target should be 100,000. Shelter agrees with that view, as do the Housing Corporation and that other well-known left-wing think tank, the Audit Commission.
In considering action for the Budget, the Chancellor would do well to examine the arguments of the Institute of Housing. The institute says,
"House building is one of the most effective ways to create new employment because it is labour intensive. Every £1 million invested in new houses or renovation creates as many as 50 new jobs. If 100, 000 new jobs can be created overall, something over £750 million would be gained by the Exchequer. Most construction products are produced from United Kingdom sources so the import bill for expanded house building will be modest. House building primarily stimulated United Kingdom materials suppliers. Part of the cost of the investment programme would be offset by savings in benefits and recovered tax income."
On the same theme, Shelter says,
"In 1990 nearly 5,000 building firms became insolvent, followed by 7,000 in 1991. The building employers estimate that an average of 600 jobs--about 300,000 in total--will have been lost each working day in the past two years to the end of 1992. Another 100,000 could be lost by the end of 1993.
Each unemployed person costs the state, on average, £8,900 in benefits and lost tax. In just two years the collapse of the construction industry may well have cost the Exchequer £2,700 million, and much more if unemployment in related trades is considered If lost corporation tax and stamp duty are included, the recession in the construction industry has probably already cost over £4,000 million."
Later, I will set out arguments as to why that figure is larger. The motion talks about links between different agencies and appropriate housing for people with disabililities. What do I mean by that? One of the most frustrating aspects of public administration in the United Kingdom is the way in which everything works in little boxes. Departments and, indeed, empires build up in splendid isolation with no knowledge or even a care about the rest of the world. In addressing the problem which we face in that area, we can examine the health links. Shelter argues that
"meeting the needs of homeless people costs more per person than meeting the needs of the rest of the population."
That is fairly obvious. It says that the issue is causing considerable concern to health authorities--we have not seen any action on that--but, as yet, there are no estimates of cost. Similarly, few studies have estimated the costs of bad housing. The Department of Health has recently estimated that the cost to the NHS of treating illnesses created through condensation runs at £800 million per year. We must add that to the figure of £4,000 million and all the other health cost implications.
Likewise, much of what happens on the ground with regard to social services relies on the good will of local authority officers trying desperately to solve the
| Next Section
| Home Page |