| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Housing Strategy (London)
7. Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to develop a housing strategy for London. [738]
Mr. Gummer: Every London borough has its own housing strategy supported by significant taxpayers' investment. I have had no request from any leader of any London council to take such strategy out of their hands.
Mr. Soley: Do the Government accept that leaders of the business community, as well as housing experts, have been saying that the lack of affordable rented housing in London, especially central London, is leading to recruitment and retention problems with employees, as well as to social problems? If the Secretary of State is not prepared to resource local authorities, will he allocate responsibility to the Housing Corporation so that someone can take overall responsibility for meeting housing needs in London?
Mr. Gummer: This year, the total Government capital resources for London housing are over £800 million. Over one third of the national housing investment programme resources go to London local authorities, even though they have only about one seventh of the housing stock. The hon. Gentleman must accept that we are already making a particular effort in London, which is out of proportion to the rest of the country, specifically because of London's special needs.
Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a key part of housing policy in inner London is to ensure that inner London boroughs manage their council housing stock properly, collect rents and reduce the number of empty properties, instead of whingeing and blaming the Government for their own errors?
Mr. Gummer: All that list is right, but the collection of rents, in particular, is an important aspect. Local authorities that do not collect the rents are in fact removing their opportunity to help those in greatest need. Collection would help considerably.
County Hall
8. Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to safeguard the future of county hall; and if he will make a statement. [739]
Mr. Gummer: The planning system and English Heritage are together safeguarding county hall.
Mr. Banks: Oh, really? Is the Secretary of State aware that the riverside building at county hall is an empty shell from the second floor upwards and there is no sign of the hotel for which the Shirayama organisation put in planning permission? It is busily building an aquarium for which it has not yet applied for a license from the local authority, and it has not approached the Department for any Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species licence for the keeping of sea mammals. The whole thing is a catastrophe and a scandal for which the Government are entirely responsible. When Labour is in government, it will hang this round the neck of the right hon. Gentleman. If he wants to protect himself, he ought to do something about what is going on at county hall now.
Mr. Gummer: The fact is that two contracts have been let, one involving the preparatory work for the aquarium according to the arrangements suggested by Shirayama and the second involving the initial work on the hotel. The hon. Gentleman should face the fact that considerable
works have to be done there, not least to get rid of the asbestos. I assure him that we are keeping a very close eye on the matter. English Heritage last visited county hall on Friday; I have been there myself and will certainly go again. I can also assure him that we are keeping a close watch on the valuables that he removed from county hall, which were on his mantelpiece but which are now in safe keeping.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the glorious buildings at Greenwich will not suffer a similar fate?
Mr. Gummer: I am quite sure that the plans to make that exciting world heritage site even better will proceed as well as they can with the greatest partnership possible. My colleagues are now considering the opportunities that will become available.
Ramsar Convention
9. Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many locations have been nominated for consideration as protected sites under the Ramsar convention. [740]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): The United Kingdom has listed more sites than any other member of the Ramsar convention--95 wetlands of international importance, including three sites in the United Kingdom's dependent territories. The Government are currently considering a further 32 United Kingdom sites, which have been proposed by the statutory conservation agencies.
Mr. Viggers: Is my hon. Friend aware that the local residents of Gosport and Portsmouth were pleased when the Portsmouth harbour area was designated a special protection area for birds and that we are proud to provide a home for so many red-breasted merganser, Brent geese and dunlin? However, the millennium funding of more than £40 million will provide literally one chance in 1,000 years to develop the Portsmouth harbour area. Should it be necessary for the local authorities to ask for some concession at the margins from the Ramsar convention and other environmental regulations, will my hon. Friend consider that request sympathetically?
Mr. Clappison: I shall certainly give careful consideration to any such points and set them alongside the important nature conservation interests represented in Portsmouth. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming the considerable progress and leadership that the United Kingdom has given to the Ramsar convention in this country and elsewhere.
Local Government Finance
10. Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about the area cost adjustment factor; and if he will make a statement. [741]
Mr. Curry: I have announced an independent review of the area cost adjustment.
Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend speed up his review of that most unjust subsidy, which is now costing
the people of the north more than £1.5 billion a year? Is it not high time that we northerners ceased subsidising southerners to quite such an extent?
Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend will understand if I am not tempted into that particular form of global warfare. He will appreciate that the area cost adjustment is in place to try to compensate for the additional labour costs in London and the south-east. All those who get it think that it is inadequate, and all those who do not think that what is given is unjust. That is why the only way forward is to set up an alternative. Provided that it is robust and delivers the results that we want, and provided that the local authority associations are able to agree that it is robust, which is asking quite a lot, it can go into the formula for the revenue support grant the year after next.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the Minister recall that, when I came to see him with an all-party delegation of councillors and hon. Members earlier this year, he gave us an undertaking that the research into the area cost adjustment would be effective for next year's settlement? Is that still the case? Will he take on board the fact that the people of Cambridgeshire are utterly fed up with the way in which their standard spending assessment is so much lower than that of neighbouring counties?
Mr. Curry: No. What I told the hon. Lady, which is what I told the House, was that we were seeking an alternative and that, if it proved robust, it would be used. We considered whether a travel-to-work concept would work, and the Association of County Councils was also pursuing an alternative methodology. Neither stood up to robust analysis. That is why we have to look to an entirely different approach and why I set up the review. We hope to have the results of that next June so that they can go into the following year's settlement.
Mr. Rathbone: When considering those matters, will my hon. Friend remember that the area cost adjustments were originally set up to compensate county councils such as East Sussex for the additional costs that they have to bear? Will he ensure that those additional costs will be met in future--provided of course that East Sussex county council is more efficient than it is at present?
Mr. Curry: It is a basic misunderstanding to assume that the area cost adjustment is just £1.5 billion off the top, from which, if it were not applied, everyone else would be able to benefit. If one did not have the present method, one would still have to calculate the additional cost in London and the south-east. That would clearly have to come out of the total settlement. So people must be cautious before they assume that there is a bonanza available for redistribution. I am determined that the method we use will be robust, stand up and compensate the real costs. The purpose of the inquiry is to identify actual costs, wherever they are incurred, in a fair way.
Ms Armstrong: Although the Minister has not yet established the review and identified members of the review body, will he ensure that they address not only the unfairnesses already mentioned, but those concerning the manner in which areas of deprivation are identified? Nobody, but nobody, accepts that Westminster is the fourth most deprived area in the country.
Mr. Curry: I am sorry that the independent report which said that is inconvenient for the hon. Lady, because
it means that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has spent all these years peddling something that is patently untrue. I am afraid that that is just hard luck; it is untrue.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |