| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.57 pm
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford): I am grateful for the opportunity briefly to intervene in this important debate. When I served on the housing committee of a London council serving residents in Paddington, we had 24,000 tenants on our books. One has only to say that number to realise how difficult it is for any local authority with large numbers of tenants to manage them as effectively as can a smaller and more focused range of housing associations and private sector providers that can give a better quality of housing provision.
Although a new Labour Government were indeed elected, as the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) pointed out, they promised to privatise, to follow our policies on privatisation and the private finance initiative and, indeed, even to accept private funding of the railways. The Bill's thrust goes entirely against that logic and the logic of what the previous Government did, which the electorate endorsed time and again.
When a local authority gets involved in business, it never does so that well. When it gets involved in negotiating the purchase of land, in construction contracts for new building or in the management of housing estates, it is highly unlikely that it has the ability, the management or the focus to do the job as effectively as the private sector. Instead of encouraging an increase in the public sector borrowing requirement, we should be encouraging more investment by housing associations in order to get the extra housing that we need.
We should also be encouraging new investors in housing. The previous Government ensured that the rent laws became more even handed and fairer, and enabled great expansion. [Laughter.] The Under-Secretary of State laughs, yet the previous Government ensured a great expansion of the private rented sector, which had been in terminal decline under the previous regime of protected rents. We should build on that by encouraging new investors such as pension funds to get directly involved in providing social housing--if necessary through an element of subsidy, just as we do on some transport lines. We should follow through the logic of involving the private sector in housing rather than returning to the local authority control that many Government Members have mentioned.
Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney):
Why does the hon. Gentleman see the situation as an either/or option? The council that I led over the past six months took both routes. We worked with the private sector and housing associations, but sought to improve our own stock. Of the 6,000 homes that are still council run, half of them have no central heating and only a fifth have double glazing. For every £1 million released under the Bill, about 250 of those homes can be fitted with double glazing and central heating. That will be good for energy efficiency, jobs and business, but it will also improve the tenants' quality of life. Why does the hon. Gentleman want to deprive those tenants of benefiting purely on the dogmatic ground of wanting only to go down the private route?
Mr. St. Aubyn:
Of course I do not want to do that. I want the quality of housing--whether it is in the public or the private sector--to be improved. The point is who is best able to do that. If the Bill were limited to improving tenant accommodation, it might make a little more sense. In privatising parts of the country's assets, the previous Government became involved in improving those assets and their management before they were passed to better management in the private sector.
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings):
Does my hon. Friend recall the very sad and poor record of many Labour local authorities on maintenance and repair of council housing and Labour's bitter opposition over many years to the right to buy? Are his fears about what the Bill might lead to based on those memories, which seem to have been passed over or easily forgotten by Labour Members?
Mr. St. Aubyn:
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We have heard Labour Members comment on certain Conservative councils and how they tried to do their best for their tenants and their tenants' children in their areas, but we must not forget that the Labour Minister Herbert Morrison, who formerly ran London
Mr. Paul Truswell (Pudsey):
I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this very important debate.
There is a saying that goes: "When Pudsey is strong, Yorkshire is strong, and when Yorkshire is strong, England is strong." Admittedly, the comment was about cricket. After all, Pudsey is the birthplace of Herbert Sutcliffe, Len Hutton, Ray Illingworth and many other famous Yorkshire cricketers. Following the general election result on 1 May, I like to think that that statement carries a certain topical political resonance.
Labour took the seat of Pudsey for the first time in its history after a Conservative reign of 75 years. My predecessor was Sir Giles Shaw. I have noticed with some humour that some new hon. Members have felt obliged to engage in a certain amount of psychological gymnastics in order to pay tribute to their predecessors. Thankfully, I have no need of such contortions. Sir Giles served the constituency extremely well for 23 years. He held ministerial office and, at one stage, he was even a pretender to the Speaker's throne. His most immediate, disarming and deceptive characteristic was his size. He was, as they say, vertically challenged. I suspect that not even his best friends would claim that he was the personification of the principle that small is beautiful. That fact used to cause some merriment when we appeared together. There were the usual predictable quips about little and large, and one wag even suggested that the swing to Labour in Pudsey was 13.8 inches rather than 13.8 per cent.
What Sir Giles lacked in physical stature, he more than made up for in the presence that he brought to his role as a Member of Parliament. He was a compassionate, middle-of-the-road, one-nation Conservative. I realise that many in the present Conservative party regard those descriptions almost as expletives, but I hope that Sir Giles does not. If he does, I can seek refuge in the protection of the absolute privilege of the House. I wish Sir Giles a long, happy and, above all, healthy retirement.
I shall not claim, as other hon. Members have done for their constituencies, that Pudsey was God's best attempt at creating a garden of Eden in England's green and pleasant land. However, it is an attractive part of the world. Many people choose to move there and few choose to leave. It is also the gateway to Ilkley moor and the Yorkshire dales. The millstone grit from which much of the area is built is a reflection of its character. Its communities are fiercely proud and independent. The constituency contains Pudsey itself and the towns and villages of Farsley, Calverley, Horsforth, Rawdon, Yeadon, Guiseley and Hawksworth.
Pudsey constituency also sports one or two household names besides its cricketing greats. Harry Ramsden's, for example, is my corner chip shop. The company started from a tiny wooden shack 50 or 60 years ago. The shack is still there, and the company has exported fish and chips
to the known universe. Across the road, is the Silver Cross pram factory. It is probably fair to say that many hon. Members were transported in Silver Cross prams--my hon. Friends by their parents, and Conservative Members, no doubt, by their nannies. Talking about being pushed around, I note that several Opposition Members have taken to calling new Labour Members voting fodder. All I can say is that we do not feel half as chewed up as the many hundreds of Tory candidates whom we defeated on 1 May.
The Bill that we are discussing is very important. It is about investing in our communities, which have sadly lacked such investment in the past 18 years. We need investment in child care and education, and the money released from the abolition of nursery vouchers and assisted places will start that process. We need investment in our NHS, and releasing money from the internal market and enabling the private finance initiative will start that process. Incidentally, I look forward to the rebuilding of Wharfedale general hospital being on the list of such projects.
The area that has perhaps been most starved of investment is public housing. My council tenant constituents believe that the previous Government not only neglected them, but almost despised them. The Bill will help to reverse that neglect. It will start the essential process of renewal. I should perhaps declare a personal interest. I was brought up in a council house and my parents still live in the same house 44 years later. They, like many millions of ordinary people, are dependent on good, affordable rented housing. They prefer--whatever Opposition Members may say--to live in housing that is publicly owned and administered by the local authority.
In 1979-80, Leeds city council was building 1,200 properties a year. Today, as a result of the previous Government's policies, it builds none. A partnership with the voluntary sector provides some decent affordable rented housing, but nothing like enough to fill the huge void left by the reduction in council house building. In 1979-80, the council received permission from the then Labour Government to invest £100 million at today's prices in its housing stock. That figure has fallen by more than 85 per cent. to about £13 million this year.
Some 20,000 council homes have been sold. That is good news for those who have been given the ability to purchase their home, and one would not want to decry that. However, the properties sold tend, unfortunately, to be the best stock whose rents were used to subsidise the poorest stock remaining in council ownership. It has been estimated that about £750 million is needed by Leeds to put its housing stock in order. At the current rate, that would take more than 60 years, and would not take into account any problems emerging during that time.
When I became a councillor 15 years ago, I was scandalised by the fact that it took a month or five or six weeks to house homeless people. That period has now tripled or quadrupled, and only those with the highest social and medical priorities stand any chance of getting the housing that they need. Linking investment to welfare to work will have other advantages. It will provide the dignity and income of a job, and will enable people to walk down their street, look at local housing and say proudly, "I did that."
9.3 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |