House of Commons
Tuesday 15 October 1996
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]
Order for consideration read.
Ordered,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.--[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Order for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time on Tuesday 22 October.
1. Mr. Ian Bruce:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage local authorities to transfer their housing stock to alternative landlords. [38350]
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer):
To date, 52 local authorities have transferred their stock, raising over £3.7 billion of private sector money which has been invested, improving the level of repairs and maintenance in transferred housing. I am therefore encouraging all authorities to follow their example.
Mr. Bruce:
I thank my right hon. Friend for those encouraging words. He probably knows that West Dorset, which covers part of my constituency, has benefited from homes being released, thereby becoming a better landlord and keeping rents down and productivity up. Money is also released back into West Dorset to spend on job creation projects. Other councils in my area, however, say that they have to join a list and wait their turn if they want to get into transferring.
Will my right hon. Friend offer more encouragement to ensure that this happens early and to ensure that the Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors who continually try to block progress are prevented from doing so?
Mr. Gummer:
I shall certainly be happy to look at any suggestions from the local authorities concerned. I do
Mr. Betts:
Is not the Secretary of State addressing the wrong issue? It is not housing transfer that concerns tenants most. Most of them want to stay with their local authorities anyway. What worries tenants is the need to build new homes and to improve existing ones. Should not the right hon. Gentleman be ashamed of the fact that the Government have allowed public investment in housing to drop by half since the last general election, at a time when local authorities possess £5 billion in capital receipts which could be used to improve homes and build new ones? Should not the Secretary of State be dealing with that instead of with fanciful notions about the transfer of housing stock?
Mr. Gummer:
It is odd, if the hon. Gentleman thinks that, that Sheffield should be one of the first local authorities concerned with the estates renewal challenge fund--which is precisely what we are talking about. Transfer releases capital from the private sector, which enables that capital to be spent. So the tenants who want better maintenance and improved homes get them. Experience in Suffolk Coastal, my area, shows that whereas there used to be many complaints, even about a well run local housing authority, there are now very few complaints because of the improvements that have been achieved. The hon. Gentleman should follow what Manchester has done, and what has been done elsewhere by local authorities that are a little more progressive than he is.
2. Mr. Thomason:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has further to extend the rough sleepers initiative. [38351]
The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry):
I am studying the results of the survey into the extent of rough sleeping outside central London undertaken on behalf of the Government by Shelter and I expect to announce my conclusions shortly.
Mr. Thomason:
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the number of people who have been sleeping rough in the centre of London since 1990 and the introduction of the initiative has fallen to about a quarter of the previous figure, according to the independent survey? Does he agree that it is therefore important that the initiative should be extended outside central London as soon as possible?
Mr. Curry:
I agree with my hon. Friend, whose interest in the matter is well known. The initiative has been successful in central London and we are investigating the needs of other places which might require such an initiative. In some places, facilities may exist but, for example, the outreach services are not effectively directing people who need those facilities to
Mr. Winnick:
Is it not a telling commentary on the Government that so many people are sleeping rough? Prior to 1979 and in the late 1960s, I do not remember leaving the House and seeing anyone sleeping rough in Charing Cross or in the Strand. On my way home now, many people are in that desperate situation, and that shows only too well the failure of the Government's housing policy.
Mr. Curry:
The fact is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) said, that, according to independent counts--not done by the Government--the numbers have come down significantly. The hon. Gentleman would be foolish indeed if he assumed that all rough sleeping is directly attributable to one cause or another. We are all aware of the fragmentation of society, and the Leader of the Opposition recently devoted a speech to that subject. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Government should be held responsible, automatically and immediately, for every development in society, he has a bizarre view of government. We are tackling the problems with remarkable success and with the co-operation of the voluntary sector. The hon. Gentleman would do better to pay tribute to those who work hard to help those in the greatest need.
Mr. Brooke:
I do not wish to accuse anybody of NIMBYism, and I acknowledge the achievements of the rough sleepers initiative, but does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that friction is increasing at the interface between the solutions to the problems faced by rough sleepers and, in some cases, their behaviour and the residential communities on which those solutions are beginning to impinge? Has he given thought to how that friction might be better lubricated?
Mr. Curry:
My right hon. Friend is correct. It is often difficult to obtain planning permission, for example, for some of the specialist facilities, such as de-tox units, because residents are naturally fearful of the possible effect on the neighbourhood. If we can draw rough sleepers into some framework of care and discipline, that is better for the neighbourhood than if they remain on the street, but it is clear that people who live close to facilities should be invited to visit the facilities and the framework that exists and to give their consent. The changes must be made with the residents, not against them.
Mr. Raynsford:
As the Minister is keen to quote figures, may I ask whether he agrees with the conclusions of the recent report of the inquiry into preventing youth homelessness, which was chaired by Andreas Whittam Smith, that some 300,000 youngsters experienced homelessness last year? Does he agree that the spectacle of young people begging and sleeping on the streets of our cities is the most terrible indictment of the failure of the Government's housing policy?
Why, therefore--when he and his Department are trying, through the rough sleepers initiative, to reduce the numbers sleeping rough--do his colleagues in other Departments undermine his efforts? Why is the Secretary
of State for Social Security introducing benefit cuts that will leave many more under-25-year-olds sleeping rough because they do not have the means to pay for housing?
Mr. Curry:
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I do not accept the figures of the inquiry chaired by Andreas Whittam Smith, because they are based on a sample survey of single and homeless people taken in 1991, which has been extrapolated to 1995. There is a problem of young homelessness and, indeed, of all sorts and I would like to be able to tackle all those problems, but such figures, which are extrapolated, based on unreliable sources and designed for propaganda purposes, are not helpful. People would be better served if voluntary effort were devoted to helping those in need, rather than to concocting propaganda figures.
3. Sir Anthony Durant:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his Department's responsibilities in relation to the construction industry. [38352]
The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones):
My Department's role within the Government and the EU is to help sell British construction products and services in the domestic, European and world markets.
Sir Anthony Durant:
Does my hon. Friend agree that the recovery in the construction industry is still slow? Will he encourage the private finance initiative, in co-operation with the Department of Health and the Department of Transport, and try to get it moving a little faster?
Mr. Jones:
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the private finance initiative. My right hon. Friend and I have met those in the construction industry several times to discuss issues related to the PFI and, as a result, have encouraged bilaterals with the Departments to which my hon. Friend referred, but not just those Departments, because we must ensure that any, obstacles are overcome, whichever Departments are involved.
Mr. Robert Ainsworth:
Does the Minister accept that half a million jobs in the construction industry have been lost over the past six years? How does he justify the Government's policy doing such damage to the industry, when £5 billion of local authority capital receipts are tied up and unusable and there is massive need in the country? Does the Minister accept any responsibility for that?
Mr. Jones:
I remember the borrowing binge that the last Labour Government went through, and the massive inflation that did immense damage to the construction industry. We would no doubt have that again if we ever had the misfortune to have another Labour Government.
Sir Michael Neubert:
Will my hon. Friend have a word with his colleagues in the Treasury and draw their attention to the part of the construction industry that is carried out on the black economy, to the detriment of fair competition, adequate training skills and general competence, not to mention the Chancellor's cash flow?
Mr. Jones:
As my hon. Friend knows, legitimate contractors have considerable interest in trying to tackle the black economy. We have been engaged in discussions through both the Department of the Environment and the Treasury, and are contemplating what steps to take at this very moment.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |