4 Feb 1997 : Column 781
House of Commons
Tuesday 4 February 1997
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time on Tuesday 11 February.
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Tuesday 11 February.
1. Mr. Nicholas Winterton:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the level of activity in the housebuilding industry [12500]
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer):
The housebuilding industry is benefiting from strong recovery in the wider housing market. Private housing starts in the three months to December 1996 were up 33 per cent. on the same period a year ago.
Mr. Winterton:
Given that planning delays have been a major factor in the inactivity of the housebuilding sector, will my right hon. Friend proceed as rapidly as possible to implement the proposals that he recently announced to remove inefficiency and, in some cases, deliberate delays in the planning process? Does he accept that action must be taken if we are to achieve the strategic demand of 4.4 million houses over the next 20 years?
Mr. Gummer:
I very much welcome my hon. Friend's support for our proposals, and certainly I shall seek to implement them as fast as possible. He will know that now is a particularly favourable moment in his own constituency, as information from Macclesfield shows that private starts were up 63 per cent. in the past quarter, year on year. I very much hope to be able to expedite the proposals in the sense that he requires.
Mr. Mackinlay:
While the upturn in housebuilding is good news, it also reflects the previous deep depression, in which--during the stewardship of this Tory Government--the housebuilding industry looked like
4 Feb 1997 : Column 782
Mr. Gummer:
That is rich coming from the party that voted against the right to buy; the party that has done everything possible to stop people buying their own houses; and the party that has new tax proposals up its sleeve--should it come into power--which would hit every home owner in the country. The hon. Gentleman is unbelievable, as usual.
Mr. John Marshall:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important influences on the level of house building is the level of interest rates? Has he contemplated what would happen to interest rate levels and to the house building industry if we were ever to have a Government who were determined to spend an extra £30 billion?
Mr. Gummer:
Low interest rates and low inflation are the result of the Government's extremely good financial stewardship. The Labour party is committed to signing the European social chapter, which would increase unemployment. It is also committed to supporting a series of measures that would increase interest rates and put Britain back in the position that it was under the previous Labour Government--as the laughing stock of Europe, instead of as the leader of Europe.
Mr. Sutcliffe:
How will housing needs be met? Housing association grants have been cut, and, because of political dogma, the Government will not allow councils to build houses. So how will the Government achieve the 4.4-million target in new houses by the turn of the century? Who will build those houses when the Government will not give local authorities the opportunity to do so?
Mr. Gummer:
Of course, the only reason that all would need to be social housing is if there were a Labour Government pushing down people's ability to buy their own houses. So the hon. Gentleman will have to explain why his party has now announced that--in the next two years, which is what we have been discussing--it would not provide any more money for social housing. He had better ask those questions of the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who has clearly shot him out of the water.
2. Mr. Devlin:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 20 January, Official Report, column 437, if he will announce his decision on the future of Stockton city challenge high street redevelopment scheme. [12501]
The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones):
The orders and applications for this scheme are now before my right
4 Feb 1997 : Column 783
Mr. Devlin:
Given that it is a year since the public inquiry ended and that the whole of the town centre scheme in Stockton has been left in limbo because his officials have been sitting on it for so long, will my hon. Friend now deal with the matter as an urgent priority and disregard the representations that are obviously being received from Chesterfield Properties, which has a vested interest in wrecking the scheme?
Mr. Jones:
I fully recognise that my hon. Friend has been leading a vigorous campaign to get the scheme approved; he has certainly left neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment nor my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in any doubt as to the importance of the scheme to Stockton. As he said, however, there is a legal challenge to the scheme, and it would be extremely unwise to make a decision that could not stand up in law.
3. Mr. Gordon Prentice:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses in east Lancashire (a) are unfit for habitation and (b) require repairs to bring them up to a habitable standard. [12502]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison):
At the most recent estimate, there were approximately 48,800 houses statutorily unfit in east Lancashire.
Mr. Prentice:
Does the Minister appreciate that 67 per cent. of properties in Pendle were built before 1919, which is the highest percentage of any local authority in England outside inner London? Does he further appreciate that 25,000 properties there are in need of repair and that 5,400 are unfit? Ministers presumably want people to live in warm and comfortable homes, so why have Conservative policies been such a failure in north-east Lancashire?
Mr. Clappison:
The hon. Gentleman is right inasmuch as east Lancashire has one of the highest proportions of older properties in the country, which is a particular problem. According to the most recent analysis of the English house condition survey, the number of unfit properties in the country as a whole has fallen by about 10 per cent. The hon. Gentleman's local authority will no doubt want to deal with its particular problems by taking advantage of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 strategically to use the renovation grants that the Government provide to--[Interruption.]
I am hearing sedentary comments from the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). The implication of what he is saying and the implication of the hon. Gentleman's question is that they are pleading for additional public expenditure and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who is sitting next to the hon. Member for Greenwich, has his own ideas about
4 Feb 1997 : Column 784
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman:
Is my hon. Friend aware that the number of single pensioners--they are the most vulnerable people--who live in unfit dwellings fell by 10 per cent. between 1986 and 1991? Is not that an important improvement in the conditions of our elderly population?
Mr. Clappison:
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is indeed good news that pensioners' housing conditions have improved. Pensioners will no doubt want to take advantage of the more generous home repairs assistance under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.
4. Mr. Touhig:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households were accepted as homeless by local authorities in England in 1996; and what was the equivalent figure for 1979. [12503]
The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry):
Households that have been found accommodation by local authorities after being accepted as statutorily homeless numbered 55,530 in 1979 and 120,810 in 1995. Detailed changes--uncontroversial changes--to the reporting system were made in 1980 and 1982.
Mr. Touhig:
However much the Minister tries to fudge the figures, he cannot escape the harsh fact that homelessness has more than doubled under this Government. Will he therefore accept that the fact that his party has failed to deal with this problem, which affects the most vulnerable in society, is the strongest argument for a change of Government?
Mr. Curry:
It is curious to be accused of fudging the figures when I have just given two extremely precise figures. The hon. Gentleman ought to listen and use a little common sense. Homelessness is falling and there are measures in place to deal with it. He should also be cautious in assuming that homelessness and other social ills which result from, for example, the falling apart of families, the break-up of partnerships and many social trends of which he or I might or might not approve, can all be remedied by the Government. It takes only a little common sense to realise that the Government can do some things, but that sometimes we have to react just like everyone else--our reaction is comprehensive, effective and working.
Mr. David Nicholson:
My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is a widespread welcome for the success of the rough sleepers initiative and its extension outside London to other centres. However, the success of the initiative is limited when it has to deal with homeless people who suffer from drug or alcohol dependency or mental illness. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that his Department is working with other Departments, including the Home Office and the Department of Social Security, to ensure that the
4 Feb 1997 : Column 785
Mr. Curry:
I agree with my hon. Friend that, when we come to deal with the hard core of rough sleepers--it is a hard core; we have reduced the numbers significantly--we come across problems of mental health and of drink and drugs. Those are not problems to which the Opposition's simplistic answer, "Put a roof over his or her head," applies. A great deal of care is needed. A home is often the last thing that people in such circumstances need, because an enormous amount of work needs to be done before they have the competence even to contemplate looking after themselves. We need a co-ordinated approach to the problems. The rough sleepers initiative, now in its seventh year, adopts such an approach. It is a remarkable example of co-operation between the Government and the voluntary sector.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |