| Home Page |
Column 329
Oral Answers to Questions
ENVIRONMENT
Regional Government, London
1. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary ofState for the Environment what representations he has received about the introduction of regional government inLondon. [28027]
7. Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Secretary ofState for the Environment what representations he has received about whether regional government is needed forLondon [28033]
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I have had no recent representations in favour of introducing a top-heavy new layer of regional government in London.
Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, if London had to suffer a regional government, it would become the most over-governed capital city in western Europe? May I, as a former London borough councillor, remind him that the GLC mark 1 was an expensive irrelevance that caused confusion and cost to London's ratepayers, and that no one except the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) wants a GLC mark 2?
Mr. Gummer: I hope that the House will remember that in the last five years of the GLC's existence its spending rose by 170 per cent. while prices were rising by 29 per cent., and that in 1986 it had 92 councillors, 20,000 staff and a budget of almost £1 billion. It is difficult to see that we are missing anything.
Labour's plans for regional government--which, happily, have now been leaked in an official Labour party document--reveal that the London assembly that it wants would take economic development, the environment, planning, water, transport, higher education, health, community care, police and emergency services, energy and training away from everyone else.
Mrs. Roche: A poll conducted recently by the Association of London Government showed that 79 per cent. of people supported an elected authority for London. Does the Secretary of State agree that what has been said by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) is arrant nonsense?
Mr. Gummer: I am afraid that the hon. Lady is wrong. We consulted 10,000 people in London, and very few of them put a strategic authority-- [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Mr. Dobson)--with as usual, a slight grin on his face--is trying to ask a question. The need for a strategic authority was not among the first 40 issues raised by the people whom we consulted.
Mr. Tracey: Does my right hon. Friend accept that outer London boroughs more than 20 miles from the centre have little in common with central London, and that neither a Greater London council nor a regional structure would make sense? Will my right hon. Friend encourage the "confederation" view of the Association of London Government? Surely that, rather than the imposition of nonsensical views such as Labour's, is the sensible way of promoting subsidiarity among London boroughs.
Column 330
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend may have noticed that the London boroughs--even those under Labour control--do not seem very enthusiastic about yielding their perfectly proper powers, particularly those relating to education, to some regional government controlling the entire capital. He may also have reflected that the old GLC area is far too small to deal with many matters, such as transport, while in regard to others--such as tourism--central London boroughs should work together, as they do in the new cross-river partnership. The Thames covers a completely different area which extends both above and below the old GLC area. There is no doubt that regional government, as run by the GLC, is entirely unsuitable for London, and is unmourned by the majority of Londoners.Mr. Dobson: When will the Government recognise that the majority of people in London--ranging in polls from about two thirds to four fifths-- believe that there needs to be an elected, strategic authority for London to speak up on behalf of Londoners and to replace the present regional arrangements whereby a collection of faceless men and women, at the behest of Ministers who then deny all responsibility, take decisions behind closed doors that affect the future of all Londoners?
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman would carry more credence in the House if he had ever produced a plan for London that he had managed to keep on the table for more than two days. Every time that the Labour party produces a plan, it has to withdraw it because not everyone in the Labour party in London likes it. The hon. Gentleman has no plan for London. The reason is that the Labour party in London does not want a new GLC because it knows how unpopular it would be. The London boroughs want to go on running their own affairs. The hon. Gentleman is, on this issue like most others, utterly incredible. He has failed to produce a policy. If he thinks that he can explain to the leader of Southwark that he wants to take away education, economic and other powers, he will have a very tough time.
Dr. Twinn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only evidence about the desire for a GLC came when we abolished it? Labour boroughs privately gave us every support to hurry its demise. They hated it. Power is where it should be--at the local role level with the London boroughs.
Mr. Gummer: I agree with my hon. Friend. However, it is noticeable that the Labour party remains seated when anyone asks what it would do. It pretends to want regional government to balance what it wants to do in Scotland but when it comes to London, it says that no powers would be given to regional government. Labour really must make up its mind.
Standard Spending Assessments
2. Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State forthe Environment if he will make a statement on the areacost adjustment element of standard spending assessments. [28028]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I have previously said that I wish to take a freslook to see whether we might improve the boundaries of the zones used in the
Column 331
calculation of the adjustment. We and the local authority associations are currently looking at the initial findings of research on this which we commissioned.Dr. Wright: I am grateful for that answer. Can the Minister go on to explain to my constituents in Staffordshire why each pupil in secondary education in Surrey gets an extra £310 a year compared with my constituents' pupils in schools in Staffordshire? Would he also explain why the 10 counties that have had the largest increase in standard spending assessments since 1990 are all in the south-east and have all benefited from the area cost adjustment? Finally, can he tell the House why he has not been minded to accept the new basis for the area cost adjustment suggested by the Association of County Councils which would give Staffordshire an extra £9.5 million and go some way to offset the damaging cuts to education and other services that are taking place at the moment?
Mr. Jones: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is as aware as anybody else that that sort of argument falls into fault lines according to those who receive it and those who do not. It is therefore all the more important that the Government should carry out research to make sure that the area cost adjustment is based on proper statistical analysis. We have carried that forward by discussions with the local authority associations. The ACC is one of those which have put forward ideas, but those ideas also have to be tested by proper and rigorous statistical analysis. So far, I am afraid, it has been unable to justify its approach. What I think is dangerous about the hon. Gentleman's argument is that he has failed entirely to recognise the additional costs that fall on local authorities, not only those such as Surrey, which he cited, but on inner London local authorities, which are controlled in virtually every case by his party.
Sir Anthony Grant: Does my hon. Friend recall that for many years, I have drawn the attention of the Government to the crazy situation whereby if people take one step over the border from Bedfordshire or Hertfordshire into Cambridgeshire, they are suddenly deemed to be in a low-cost area? That is manifest nonsense. The result is that millions of pounds have been lost to Cambridgeshire which could have been used for education purposes. Therefore, any initiative that my hon. Friend takes is welcome. When he gets the results of the research, which I hope will suggest changes to travel-to-work areas, will he act quickly?
Mr. Jones: Of course, we will look at the results of the research. I know that my hon. Friend has been a doughty fighter for Cambridgeshire in this and other cases for many years. Of course, he is right. We have to look at those methods of statistical analysis that match best the real pressures to spend, whether the areas involved are in the existing south- east or immediately outside.
Mr. Illsley: The Minister will be aware that the amount of money spent on the area cost adjustment has doubled since 1990 to something like £1.6 million. He has heard from hon. Members of all parties that there are many discrepancies between adjacent areas, some of which receive the area cost adjustment and some of which do not. Will the Government consider a specific cost approach and London weighting, or other specific data, in order to achieve an immediate change rather than wait until the research is available?
Column 332
Mr. Jones: Our approach is based on specific data and research carried out by reputable organisations. London weighting is not the only additional cost borne by authorities in the south-east. Indeed, I see the hon. Members for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), who are sitting on either side of the hon. Gentleman, squirming in embarrassment about the fact that he is arguing that the area cost adjustment should be reduced because that would hit their constituencies very hard. The adjustment has to be justified by rigorous statistical analysis, not by the hon. Gentleman's political prejudice.Regional Assemblies
3. Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received asking him to move responsibility for certain services from local councils to regional assemblies. [28029]
Mr. Gummer: Since last October, we have had more than 30,000 letters about local government from members of the public, and we cannot trace or remember any that demanded regional assemblies.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Regional assemblies are not local government.
Mr. Dunn: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is no popular demand whatsoever in England for the setting up of unnecessary, expensive and socialist regional assemblies and that the people of Kent have no desire to have their local government affairs run from Woking or Reading? They believe that local government must remain local to Kent.
Mr. Gummer: I think that my hon. Friend received his answer from the Liberal local government spokesman, who said that regional assemblies are not local government. That is the whole point: regional assemblies are, in fact, utterly alien to Britain because they are not close enough to the people. People do not see themselves as living in regions and there are no natural boundaries to regions. The idea of the Labour party in the south- west, for example, saying that people in Cornwall should have their fire services organised in Bristol, or that people in Wiltshire should have their affairs run from Bristol, is entirely alien to the concept of local government. The idea that the counties, which fought for the independence that they have now been given since the changes, should have their powers taken away from them by a future Labour Government is anathema to most people.
Mr. Betts: That is one of the most nonsensical answers that I have ever heard the right hon. Gentleman give in the House. Does he not accept that the important point is that the Government have transferred powers, not to regional assemblies, but to quangos and have centralised more local government functions than any other Government in history? Economic regeneration, transport, housing and other matters are currently run by faceless officials in regional offices, but it is those things for which local people want elected councillors to have responsibility at a local level so that they can have a say. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with that point.
Mr. Gummer: I can understand why a former leader of Sheffield city council would want someone else to run his city, given the disastrous position in which he left it
Column 333
and the debts that he ran up for it. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that parents are quangos and that people who run their own affairs are quangos. In fact, schools are now run by parents, teachers and governors on behalf of pupils. It is not only such matters that would be given to a regional assembly; it would, it appears, be responsible for economic development, the environment, planning, water and transport, all of which are currently run by local government. The idea that we have taken powers away from local government, when responsibility for something such as community care--one of the most important social services--has been given to local government, reveals just how empty the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric is.Mr. Harris: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the document to which he refers-- [Hon. Members:-- "Which document?"] The Labour party's document for regional government in the south-west which puts forward the concept of a regional assembly covering an area stretching from the Isles of Scilly in my constituency, right up to Swindon. As my right hon. Friend says, that would not only be anathema to the people of Cornwall, but would make absolute nonsense of the whole concept of local government and the provision of local control over those services.
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. The document, which has now received welcome publicity, is a recent publication by the Labour party in the south-west. My hon. Friend is right to say that the only problem with the geography of the document is that the map on the front includes Berkshire as part of the south-west. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) would like Newbury to be run from Bristol, for example. The difficulty for the Labour party is that it is in a party political mess. It needs regional government to justify having Scots in this House to vote on English matters without English Members voting on Scots matters. That is its only reason for regional government. It has nothing to do with the people of England.
Mr. Rendel: In relation to the powers of local government, what is the Secretary of State's reaction to the final report from the Commission for Local Democracy which was launched this morning? What is his reaction in particular to three of its recommendations that, first, there should be a single transferable vote system of elections for local government; secondly, that we should as a country ratify the European charter for local self-government; and, thirdly, that there should be a power of general competence for local government, except where prohibited by statute?
Mr. Gummer: I note that the question is about regional government. The first thing that that body said was that regional government was not a sensible policy for England. That was one of the few important things that it said--many of the other things that it said suffered a fundamental gap. It did not talk about the connection between who gave the money and who decided on the policy. The trouble with the whole issue of local democracy is this: if the money is supplied by the national taxpayer, it is difficult to have a kind of local democracy which enables people to pre-empt the decisions of central Government and have access to taxpayers' funds, without any kind of responsibility for the way in which those funds are spent.
Column 334
The difficulty for the Commission for Local Democracy is that it failed to address that central issue. The document does not properly address that issue because none of the people concerned with the Commission for Local Democracy has had any history of trying to make sense of the reality of having to account for the money spent.Mr. Thomason: Does my right hon. Friend find it in the least surprising that the majority of my electors in Bromsgrove are appalled at the prospect of their area being run by regional government in Birmingham? Does he find it ironic that Labour Members have been campaigning for the abolition of county councils for the past few years and yet, suddenly, they are arguing for the creation of super county councils in the form of regional assemblies?
Mr. Gummer: If that were so, it would be much easier. The Labour party is really campaigning for five levels of government. It wants Britain to become the most over-governed nation in Europe. It is very deeply concerned. It wants parishes, districts, counties, regions and the national Government. It wants all that-- [Interruption.] Well, some of them want that and others do not want it. Above all, the trouble is that the person who speaks on the subject occasionally is not the man who will make the decision--he cannot be trusted with it. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is entrusted with that.
Mr. Salmond: Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be highly appropriate if a Scottish assembly had powers over oil and gasfield decommissioning? Do not the Government have a huge financial interest--up to £1 billion--in deep-water disposal as opposed to onshore dismantling? Was the Secretary of State consulted yesterday by the President of the Board of Trade before he made his sabre-rattling comments about denying--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was a game try, but it was not relevant to the question.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people in the Ribble Valley were deeply disappointed when Lancashire county council, which is controlled by the Labour party, was not scrapped, but that they totally oppose handing powers away from themselves to a body that they would regard as even more remote and out of touch than the current county council?
Mr. Gummer: But those people would be supported in that by several members of the Labour party who are desperate to get rid of Lancashire county council. One of the problems with regionalism in the north-west is that although nobody outside the Labour party has asked for a regional assembly, many Labour party members, such as the hon. Member for Blackburn, see the prospect as a means of getting rid of the Labour leader of the county council, whom they are desperate to get rid of by one means or another.
Mr. Trimble: Is there not already a significant amount of administration that is regionally based, and would it not be better if such administrative regional devolution from Whitehall were subject to democratic control, rather than being run by quangos, as at present? Is not the Secretary of State right to say that there is no threat to the future unity of the United Kingdom from a uniform
Column 335
system of regional devolution, but does not the real threat lie in having devolution for one region alone, as the Government propose?Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman may recognise that the issues raised in one part of the United Kingdom are particular and difficult, and I have no intention of being drawn on that subject here. However, one of the reasons why there now appears to be a bias towards female-only lists has been revealed. I have discovered that there is another way of getting rid of the leader of Lancashire county council. Is there no end to the Labour party's desire to attack her?
Sewage Treatment Works
4. Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in upgrading sewage treatment works which were in breach of their discharge consents at the time of privatisation of the water industry. [28030]
The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): Of 918 sewage treatment works identified in 1989 as requiring investment, 95 per cent. are now compliant with their consents. Further investment is planned over the next 10 years.
Mr. Congdon: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having become my right hon. Friend. I welcome the improvements that have taken place in the treatment of sewage since the massive investment following privatisation of the industry, but does my right hon. Friend agree that there is more to be done to ensure that no sewage is discharged into the sea in an untreated state?
Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The problem that he mentions has been around for a considerable time, and because of its size it is not likely simply to go away. However, since privatisation many companies involved in the disposal of sewage have spent vast sums on improvements. My hon. Friend's point is well taken, and I am sure that the water companies already spending that money will continue to do so, so that, in the not-too-distant future, the concerns that he has expressed will vanish.
Ms Ruddock: Does the Minister agree that the improvements to which he alluded have been made as much to comply with European directives as because of privatisation? Is he also aware that the beaches at the major resorts in this country are still being contaminated by the discharge of sewage into the sea, and that the European Commission's recent annual report placed Britain third from the bottom of the league table for bathing water quality? Is it not true that this summer holidaymakers should be given the health warning, "Bathing in sea water in Britain can damage your health"?
Mr. Atkins: The hon. Lady raises several points, although, as usual, she puts her finger on a problem that is easy to attack, but she does not understand the solutions. The fact remains that this country has spent more on cleaning up its beaches and providing sewerage facilities than any other country. That has happened as a direct result of privatisation, although the hon. Lady is right to say that the European Commission has played a part. Surely the point is that for years in this country we thought that poking a pipe into the sea off the coast to get
Column 336
rid of sewage was acceptable, but we now reckon that it is not. It will cost a lot of money and take a lot of time to redress that, and it does not help if Opposition Members such as the hon. Lady attack tourism, the towns that depend on it and Britain as a whole by suggesting that our beaches are unsafe, when they are not.Mr. Hawkins: May I join in the congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his well-deserved advancement, which was particularly welcome among fellow Lancashire Members? Will he confirm that one of the best of the recent advances in sewage treatment is the splendid investment that North West Water is making to clean up the sea off Blackpool's beaches to ensure that our leading resort remains the best in the world? Is it not outrageous that the Opposition seek always to run Britain and its tourism down?
Mr. Atkins: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. Blackpool is arguably the most important tourist resort in Europe, and certainly the most important in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), speak firmly and regularly in favour of the town they represent. Anyone who attacks Blackpool and its contribution to the British economy through tourism does Lancashire and this country a grave disservice. We know who is doing that.
Homelessness, London
5. Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the total number of homeless people in London. [28031]
The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): Last November, a count by voluntary sector agencies found 288 people sleeping rough in central London.
Mr. Corbyn: Does not the Minister think that it is quite disgraceful that anyone should be sleeping rough in London? Can he explain why 28,000 families have been accepted as homeless by London's local authorities, and why hardly any building by local authorities or by housing associations is going on? Why are the Government relying on hostels to solve the homeless crisis? Does not the contrast between the 20 million sq ft of empty office space in London and the enormous housing waiting lists, and the enormous number of homeless people, suggest that the Government have got it badly and totally wrong? The Government's real priority must be to build houses for affordable rent so that people can get a clean, decent and safe roof over their heads, rather than experience the misery of bed-and-breakfast or hostel accommodation.
Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again. He knows that the rough sleepers initiative has been a great success in the past few years. That has been due to the remarkable co-operation between the voluntary organisations--to which I freely pay tribute--and my Department. The principle of that co-operation has been to find people who have difficulties and move them through into hostels. They will then be put into permanent accommodation so that they can move into some form of settled life. That will never be available for everybody, as some people with particular problems with drink and mental illness will not be able to live autonomous lives without a great deal of assistance. The system is working
Column 337
extremely well, and I have given an undertaking that it will be followed by a new rough sleepers initiative. I am pleased to pay tribute to all of the volunteers who have worked so hard to make the scheme succesful.Mr. Brooke: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the voluntary sector on the progress which the figure of 288 rough sleepers represents. But does he agree that definition in this problem is important? Would not a regular and comprehensive indexed scale of the problem--agreed with the key charities--be helpful, both in the context of policy making and informed questioning?
Mr. Curry: My right hon. Friend is right in that regard. We have a clearing house which helps to identify people who find themselves in that position and which can find accommodation for them. It is also important that we ensure that the voluntary agencies share information more effectively with each other. We have identified the schemes which are working most effectively, and we will see how we can focus those schemes on people with particular problems--for example, mental health, alcohol or drug problems. The infrastructure is largely in place, and making sure that it works efficiently is a key priority.
Mr. Simon Hughes: When will the Minister announce the Government's proposals to come to the rescue of long leaseholders who are contemplating the prospect of becoming homeless because they have bills of up to £27,000 for capital charges which they cannot possibly begin to pay? A working party has bounced ideas around the Department, but nothing has been said on the subject for months. Those people are desperate for some news, and they want to be rescued from a predicament which they never envisaged.
Mr. Curry: I will send the hon. Gentleman the announcement that we made last Monday.
Regeneration
6. Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in which main areas in England there has been significant regeneration. [28032]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): Our cities and towns are benefiting from more than£1 billion per annum in special regeneration initiatives, on top of national housing, training and education programmes. The special initiatives include urban development corporations, city challenge and the single regeneration budget challenge fund, and are building new partnerships throughout the country. They have stepped in where Labour authorities on their own have frequently failed abysmally.
Mrs. Lait: I am pleased at the success of the regeneration policies, but does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the time has come to look at other areas in need, such as Hastings? My constituents are aware that the town has high levels of unemployment, criminality, drug, solvent and alcohol abuse as well high levels of child and sex abuse, poor housing and bad roads. Does he agree that it is about time his Department started to recast its policies and moved in the direction of other areas, such as Hastings, which need help?
Column 338
Sir Paul Beresford: I think that my hon. Friend is already aware that we have moved in the right direction. In fact, Hastings has done so, because it is receiving just under half a million pounds from the round one bid for the challenge fund. My hon. Friend should persuade, if she can, her local Liberal-Labour council to work with the grain rather than against it and launch a decent bid--I hope with success-- for the next round.Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that it does no good to make an unnecessary swipe at Labour councils, as he did a few moments ago? The Burnley initiative, which comprises business, local industry and the community, is working well with the council. Their only comment to the Government would be that they should not have to get money through competition, because the Government should give out money based on need.
Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. He has obviously not read the newspapers recently; otherwise, he would have noted that a small Labour authority called Monklands is in some trouble. We have in our midst the ex-leaders of Islington and of Sheffield, where there is degeneration rather than regeneration. That is why we must opt for partnerships.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Was not the Thames gateway one of the most fascinating recent decisions of the Government's regeneration policy together with the choice of Ebbsfleet as the station on the channel tunnel rail link? Does that not augur extremely well for jobs and many other improvements in north-west Kent?
Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend is right. He has obviously noticed that we recently launched the final strategy, which was successfully received with a positive response. Even those one would expect to be critics have joined in praising the venture.
Private Rents
8. Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average rent paid by tenants of private landlords; and what was the equivalent figure for 1978-79 in actual and real terms. [28034]
Mr. Robert B. Jones: The average weekly rent paid by tenants of private landlords in England is £60.00. The average weekly rent in 1978-79 was £6.30--equivalent to £17.00 a week at 1993-94 prices.
Mrs. Campbell: Does the Minister accept that as a result of Government policies there has been a massive increase in private sector rents, which has caused a huge increase in the cost of housing benefit in the past five years from £1.1 billion to £4.9 billion?
Mr. Jones: We are anxious to ensure choice in housing for the people of Britain, and that means a healthy private rented sector. It follows from not being able to get a decent return that landlords will not come forward. If Opposition Members argue for rent controls, they must bear the consequences. For example, in 1974, when rent control was extended to furnished lettings, the number of such lettings fell by 400,000 and were therefore unavailable to people.
Column 339
Rented Homes
9. Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many rented homes were provided through the Housing Corporation in 1993-94; and how many will be provided in 1995-96. [28035]
16. Ms Hodge: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many rented homes were provided through the Housing Corporation in 1993-94; and how many will be provided in 1995-96. [28042]
Mr. Curry: The Housing Corporation estimates that it will provide 46,000 rented homes in 1995-96, including properties freed up by tenants' incentive schemes and the do-it-yourself shared ownership scheme. In 1993- 94, about 52,000 were provided.
Mr. Miller: Those figures are somewhat misleading. Data provided by the Government in their own statistics show a massive fall in approvals from 1993-94 to the current year and a fall in completions. Add that to the difficulties faced by local authorities because of the rather ridiculous restrictions placed on them by central Government and the fact that the house building market has stagnated because of the Government's fiscal policies, and it is no wonder that we have a housing crisis. When are the Government going to do anything about it?
Mr. Curry: What matters is that properties become available, and it makes sense to use resources to make the maximum number of properties available for whatever resources are available. It makes a great deal of sense, for example, to use tenants' incentive schemes, encouraging people to buy in the private sector and freeing up property, because of their effect on the number of properties entering the marketplace for new tenants.
Mr. Miller: How many are available?
Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman should not forget that about 250,000 local authority housing association tenancies become available each year, and that 75 per cent. of the programme to which he referred is for homes to rent. He should have the common sense to realise that the important thing is to free up the maximum number of properties so that people can take advantage of them. He should not become too hooked on the idea of new build and he certainly should not become hooked on the idea that local authorities should throw some mythical crock of gold into the gap. Even Members on his own Front Bench will not tell us how they would manage that.
Ms Hodge: I agree that it is important to have properties available, but it is also important that properties should be available at affordable rents. Does the Minister agree that, when he allocates grants to housing associations through the Housing Corporation next year, he will have to have regard to the quality of what is produced and the existing rents of those housing associations?
Mr. Curry: The hon. Lady, in her capacity as chairman of Circle 33 housing association, has perhaps been more successful than in her more distant capacity as leader of Islington council.
Ms Hodge indicated dissent .
Mr. Curry: Therefore, she speaks with some experience on that matter. We are obviously reflecting on questions of the type that the hon. Lady asked us, because
Column 340
it is important to ensure that rent increases do not reach the point at which they start costing resources and that maximum use of resources is made. I am sure that, if the hon. Lady will bide her time, she will discover that we shall cover those in the forthcoming publication.Mr. Raynsford: To put the record straight, may I remind the Minister that his Department recently published a memorandum confirming the need for 60,000 to 100,000 rented homes to be built each year, and that at the same time his Department's annual report--which I assume he does not repudiate-- shows that output from the Housing Corporation's approved development programme this year will generate only 18,900 rented homes, not the much larger figure to which the Minister tried to refer in his answer?
Although I understand the Minister's wish to obfuscate and confuse the issue, will he now come clean and reveal that he is responsible for reducing the output of rented housing to the lowest point for 50 years?
Mr. Curry: I thought the hon. Gentleman would come up with that one. He is confusing new building and new letting. Let us place the facts on the record. In 1995-96, 36,000 properties will be made available in approved development programme lettings, 7,200 properties will be released by tenants' incentive schemes and about 2,820 will be released by do-it- yourself shared ownership. That gives a figure of 46,020, to which I referred in my earlier answer.
English Partnership
10. Ms Corston: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to meet the chairman of English Partnership to discuss its progress. [28036]
Mr. Curry: My right hon. Friend will meet Lord Walker on 17 July.
Ms Corston: What steps does the Minister propose to take to ensure that local councils receive the help that they require with their plans for regeneration? Does he not realise that it is vital that the creation of a new agency should not be regarded as a substitute for Government action to help local councils with their plans for local regeneration and to help local businesses to bring prosperity to communities and cities?
Mr. Curry: I am sure that the hon. Lady will know that I have had detailed discussions with the Bristol development corporation, of which the chairman of Bristol local authority is a member, to try to make progress on the development scheme and to bring it to a successful completion. Two schemes previously proposed by the corporation have not materialised. There is now one on which I have authorised negotiations. I hope that that will be successful, but we must ensure that, when the corporation does come to an end, an organisation exists that is able to take over the assets. I have therefore insisted that there should also be discussions with English Partnership, a body that is very experienced in the subject. I hope that the private sector development will succeed, that I shall be able to authorise it and that the third one will be the lucky one. At the same time, it is important for the protection of Government money to ensure that there is a failsafe mechanism.
Mr. Vaz: Does the Minister accept that when the Government created English Partnership they failed to
Column 341
make clear that organisation's role? Will he now accept the views of the private sector and others, and initiate a thorough review of the role and functions of English Partnership so that it plays an important part in our regeneration process rather than being just another Government quango, as it is at present?Mr. Curry: The Opposition have clearly caught review mania. It is amazing that they do not demand a review of whether today is Wednesday. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) does not even know the answer to the question--not surprisingly. English Partnership has a clear role: to assist in development, to act as a partner in development and as a focus and help for inward investment, and to use Government resources in the most cost-effective manner. That role is played admirably by Lord Walker, who has a very good knowledge of how government and the private sector work, and of regeneration--in fact, he is almost everything that the hon. Member for Leicester, East is not.
Construction Industry
11. Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to minimise procurement disputes in the construction industry. [28037]
| Next Section
| Home Page |