| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Home Renovation Grants
4. Mr. Pope: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many mandatory home renovation grants were awarded by local authorities in 1995. [25674]
The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): There were 34,300.
Mr. Pope: Tens of thousands of people live in unfit housing across east Lancashire. They struggle to get the grants to which they are legally entitled and, later today, the Government will seek to remove their legal right to mandatory improvement grants. Why is the Minister intent on taking away the only chance that my constituents and many other people have of getting a decent home?
Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman clearly has some difficulties with chronology--that does not happen in the Housing Bill, which we are to consider today. If he holds his breath and submits an application, he may be able to serve on the Committee that considers the next Bill, which will replace mandatory grants with discretionary grants. First, he should get his documents in order. Secondly, we cannot sustain a system that has a cash-limited grant and unlimited entitlement to it--the sums do not add up. Therefore, the sensible thing to do is to make a discretionary grant and to give local authorities the ability to focus it on the areas of greatest need so that they can serve the genuine interests of regeneration. That is what the Bill will do.
Mr. Pickles: Does my hon. Friend recognise that, sometimes, we need to go beyond these grants and that some housing estates require fundamental reorganisation? Is he aware that, for the past 10 years, an estate in Islington has been promised renovation work? Is he further aware that, for the past 10 years, Islington council has pontificated and promised the tenants some work, but that it has failed to fulfil its promise because of its incompetence?
Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right: some of the older estates require much more substantial work. The Government have an estates renewal programme that is specifically designed to tackle the worst estates. What he has said about Islington council will surprise no one-- it has a dismal record, which no doubt continues.
Ms Eagle: Will the Minister admit that the 1.5 million people who live in homes that are unfit to live in will be disappointed that the Government are abolishing this scheme and that they are replacing it with a discretionary scheme? When will the Government provide money so that people can look forward to having their homes made fit to live in? That is not really such a big ambition as we reach the end of the 20th century.
Mr. Curry: First, there has been a substantial programme for the improvement of homes. Secondly, many homes are unfit for simple or minor reasons. Thirdly, public expenditure constraints have to be observed. Fourthly, when the second Bill comes to this House, it will be interesting to see whether the Labour party will do what it did in the other place--refuse to give any commitment whatsoever to restore full mandatory grants. If the Labour party wants to make an effective point on this, it would be awfully nice to know what it plans to do in this area of public expenditure and on taxation. The two are linked, and we still know nothing.
Planning Policy Guidance (Countryside)
5. Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to revise the Government's planning policy guidance for the countryside. [25675]
The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): Following our well-received White Paper entitled "Rural England", we expect to consult on a draft revision of planning policy guidance note 7 and on a possible rural business use class before the summer recess.
Mr. Robathan: I congratulate my hon. Friend and his Department on the excellent White Paper entitled "Rural England". Is he aware--perhaps he will take account of this in his consultations--of the unhappiness in some rural areas, particularly in my district of Blaby and Harborough in Leicestershire, because district councils are being compelled to provide for a large number of new homes on green-field sites? Will he, in his consultation, look to encourage the regeneration and rebuilding of inner cities on derelict land rather than building new homes on green-field sites?
Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments about the White Paper. It is precisely because we want sustainable development in housing, as elsewhere, that, for the very first time, we have set a target for the percentage of housing to be built on existing developed land. I have said to the Environment Committee that, if experience allows us, we will raise that target in time.
Mr. Vaz: Does the Minister accept that current planning policy guidance is a jungle of anomalies and
inconsistencies? For example, why has he refused to publish the results of the review into planning policy guidance note 6 until after the local elections on Thursday? Does he realise that the delay is causing massive confusion? When will we have planning policy guidance that is clear, consistent and strategic, rather than the mess that we have at the moment?
Mr. Jones: Let me help the hon. Gentleman. He knows that there is a convention that announcements such as that are not made in the run-up to local elections. We shall make the announcement immediately after the local elections, in accordance with the right practices in government.
While the hon. Gentleman is posing a question on the subject, let me ask him about reports in the weekend's press that the Labour party was poised to reverse our policy on out-of-town shopping. I am sure that any squalid deals cooked up by the Labour party, along with the squalid deals that it cooked up with BT and with Rupert Murdoch, will show it for what it is.
Compulsory Competitive Tendering
6. Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he intends to take to ensure that there is an equality of treatment when contracts are being let under compulsory competitive tendering between direct service organisations and the private sector. [25676]
Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend will be aware that, earlier this month, we issued new statutory guidance to local authorities on compulsory competitive tendering. In addition, we will publish our proposals for changing the CCT system next month.
Mr. Congdon: I warmly welcome that guidance and my hon. Friend's efforts to root out anti-competitive practices in local authorities, but does he accept that many local authorities--especially Labour ones--will do everything possible to ensure that contracts are let to their own direct labour organisations? Will he take further steps to encourage the district auditor service more rigorously to try to root out those anti-competitive practices and to pay special attention to the terms of reference of direct service organisation boards, which appear to be set up to rig the system in favour of DSOs?
Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The shenanigans that some Labour and Liberal local authorities get up to to dodge the common sense of competitive tendering are staggering. The district auditors, or the external auditing system, have the power to act in many areas, and need encouragement to do so. We shall certainly continue the encouragement, along the lines that my hon. Friend suggests.
Mr. Corbett: Does the Minister recall insisting that Birmingham city council should re-advertise its five housing management contracts when it had awarded them in fair competition with the private sector? Does he realise that that costs council tax payers in the city £1.5 million? Will he foot that bill?
Sir Paul Beresford: The answer is that it was not a fair competition. The fiddling of the books and the shenanigans that went on were incredible--not only in housing, but in other areas, time and again--and the people who lose are the people who pay and the people who receive the services. This is a blow of old Labour, and it is about time that people, including Opposition Members, understood the advantages of competitive tendering.
Sir Anthony Grant: Is my hon. Friend aware that a very good example of the importance of transferring contracts to the private sector may be found in Cambridgeshire, where nearly £2 million has been lost to direct labour organisations by the incompetent, half-baked Lib-Lab county council?
Sir Paul Beresford: There are repeated examples of such cases throughout the country. Bradford is a classic example. By shenanigans, it lost £1.2 million. When it was forced to repeat the tendering process, the new contract went out to the private sector, with a saving of £700,000.
Darlington and Westminster Councils
7. Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the local authority grant per head in (a) Darlington and (b) Westminster; and if he will make a statement. [25677]
Mr. Gummer: This year, £997 for Westminster and £621 for Darlington. That is a difference of 75 per cent. In the last year of Labour government, the difference was 84 per cent.
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for those figures. Do not they show that, if Darlington received the same level of Government help as Westminster city council, this year, every family in my constituency, instead of paying a council tax bill, would receive a rebate of £681? Is it not a national disgrace that the local authority grant system has been skewed and rigged to favour one inefficient Tory flagship council?
Mr. Gummer: What it shows is that any skewing that took place took place a darn sight more under Labour than it does under the Conservatives. It also shows that the hon. Gentleman should not work out a supplementary question before he has heard the answer to the main question.
The Labour party is entirely wrong. All the figures show that Westminster did significantly better than many of the councils that have been cited when the Labour party was in power. The Labour party's fox has been shot: if Labour Members understood the system, they would not have started the argument.
Mr. Thomason:
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, while a number of authorities may complain that the grant per head is not sufficient and that the methodology is weighted against them, whether one lives in Darlington or in Westminster, until the local government organisations controlled by the opposition parties can
Mr. Gummer:
My hon. Friend points out that all three local authority organisations that are run by Labour do not make the same claims as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). They understand how the system works and they are part and parcel of it. The hon. Gentleman, who will not listen to experts, does not understand how that system works. Parties such as his charge people £225 a year more than would a Conservative council.
Mr. Dobson:
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, under the present grant regime, council tax payers in Westminster contribute just 4 per cent. towards the cost of their council but that, in Darlington, council tax payers contribute more than 30 per cent.--and that council tax payers in Bromsgrove, Hertsmere, North Hertfordshire, Milton Keynes and Wyre Forest pay more than 30 per cent? In Basildon--the other Tory flagship--people must contribute 42 per cent. towards the cost of their council. Does not that show that the whole system is a rigged racket that favours Westminster, and that legions of Tory Members of Parliament vote for that racket, following the party line rather than standing up for local people?
Mr. Gummer:
Where were the legions of Labour Members of Parliament when Westminster did better under Labour than it does under the Conservatives? The trouble with the hon. Gentleman's argument is that he has not done his homework. He thinks that, if he says the same thing again and again, people will believe him--even though what he says is fundamentally untrue, as anyone who understands the system knows.
The fact is that Westminster did better under Labour--it received a bigger proportion of funds under Labour--and Labour Members of Parliament voted for that year in, year out. The Government apply an objective system to everyone, including Camden, even though Labour runs its councils so badly.
Mr. Yeo:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the grant per head made to Suffolk county council is extremely generous? Does he share my shock at the way in which the Labour and Liberal county councillors are now ruthlessly switching resources away from the villages and the rural areas of Suffolk in order to prop up their friends in the towns? Does not that prove that, when it comes to rigging local authority finances, the Labour and Liberal parties are the experts?
Mr. Gummer:
My hon. Friend is far too kind. He fails to mention the fact that, although Suffolk county council received an extra £11.5 million to spend on education, it spent only £8.5 million and put the rest elsewhere. He does not mention either that the council cut off funding for transport for 16 to 18-year-olds, thus underlining Labour's tax on A-levels. The Labour party has taken money from parents by way of travel allowance and it would also abolish child allowance for 16 to 18-year-olds. It is opposed to those who keep their children at school. The Labour party costs more and it spends public money where it wants rather than where the people want it to be spent.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |