| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order to hear these important exchanges.
Mr. Norman: How will the Deputy Prime Minister's widely trailed mortgage subsidies, which have been proposed in the very week that MIRAS is abolished, be funded? How much will they cost and has he agreed them with the Treasury? Is that proposal not more than a little divisive? How will the Deputy Prime Minister explain who will receive the subsidies? Is it right that a nurse in the south-east can get a home loan, but that a nurse or hospital cleaner in the north-west cannot?
Are not the Deputy Prime Minister's new proposals to make local authorities shareholders in arms-length companies just a muddled way of getting around the Treasury and of enabling councils to borrow money? Has he cleared it with the Treasury? What will it do for tenants that bulk transfers to housing associations cannot do better? Is it not the housing equivalent of the air traffic control fiasco: the worst of all possible options? Is not tinkering with the priorities for places in housing lists a poor substitute for reducing growing waiting lists in the first place?
How will hard-working families feel about being queue-jumped by released prisoners? Is that another example of a Labour Government penalising those who work hard and who do the right thing for society and for their families?
Why is it that, after three years of a Labour Government, five Labour councils have the worst record on empty council housing in Britain? One is Kingston upon Hull--the Deputy Prime Minister's own constituency. When will he deliver on any of his earlier manifesto commitments? These are basic facts. Housing investment has fallen by more than 10 per cent. since 1997. When will he increase it so that it will again reach the levels delivered by the previous Conservative Government, which he chose to deride in his statement? When will he increase the number of social houses built--which has fallen by a third since 1996, not risen--so that it will again reach the levels delivered by a Conservative Government at the end of our time in office?
In conclusion--[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Wait for it. In conclusion, can the Deputy Prime Minister explain why he is still asking questions, not providing answers, after three years in government? Is not the bottom line the fact that housing policy is being sacrificed to a turf war between him and the Treasury? The Treasury has won and the Green Paper is the surrender document. Is there a single item in the consultation document that will deliver anything in the lifetime of the Government? Does it seriously pass the Kilfoyle test? On housing, is not the bitter truth that the Deputy Prime Minister will go down in history as not only a new Labour failure, but an old Labour failure as well?
Mr. Prescott:
Another impressive performance! May I put the record straight on one fact? If one looks at the history of local authorities, of Labour government and of the building of council housing in this country, our record stands clear against that of Conservative Administrations. I well recall that, after a Labour Government built the massive housing estates after the war, a Tory Government were returned and brought in what were called the Macmillan houses, and they achieved 300,000 by
Let me address a number of points. With regard to leaks and the remarks made by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), I can only assume, and the House might accept, that if I had leaked the statement I would hardly have said that I would give priority to prisoners. That would not be the leak that I should have wanted to give to the press, but I might say that to pick on that point--[Interruption.] I would hardly do that--there are more positive things to say. With regard to the prejudice here and the extent of homelessness, let me make it clear that a third of homeless people have been in care. We have some responsibility to provide them with homes. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman may well know, some might be Tory Members of Parliament coming out of prison to whom we would want to give some consideration.
With regard to the personal matter, let me say to the hon. Gentleman that I strongly resent any implications that I did wrong concerning rents and my flat. I have done what is proper--[Interruption.] I trust that the House will listen. I have done what is proper and immediately referred the matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner to ask for advice. This rent is covered by legislation passed by a previous Tory Government. In those circumstances, it would be better if the House would at least accord me the right to wait for the report from the Parliamentary Commissioner as to whether any offence has occurred. Indeed, Members should not simply rely on press reports. Everyone should at least expect that, and I certainly expect it from the hon. Gentleman. I personally do not want to get involved in a slanging match on those matters; I make the fair point--[Interruption.]--I am responding to the point made by the Opposition spokesman.
In relation to the hon. Gentleman's comments on houses, it is a bit much for an Opposition spokesman to talk about the disinvestment that took place in the social housing stock. We estimate that as about £19 billion. That occurred because the policy of the previous Tory Administration was to sell housing, while denying councils the use of the £5 billion in their accounts to improve their properties. That was especially obscene. We corrected that injustice immediately. Let us compare our investment to that of the previous Government, which was referred to in the press reports. From 1991 to the last year of their administration in 1997, under the Treasury commitments made by the Conservative Chancellor, capital investment was halved. With the £5 billion, we have doubled it since we came into office. That is the reality.
The Conservatives halved investment through that period--the figures are clear. We have doubled it. We have changed direction because we are investing in social housing, as we are committed to do. Today, we are talking about the quality of housing. That is the difference between us.
The policy on MIRAS was not started by us. The reduction of MIRAS and of the payments for the subsidy of mortgages for private housing were initiated by the previous Administration. Both sides of the House agreed that MIRAS had affected house prices and that it should be abolished. The former Chancellor wanted to abolish it in one go. The objective has now been achieved by both Labour and Conservative Governments. We felt that MIRAS unfairly influenced the price of houses. I believe that there was agreement on that across the House.
On local borrowing and my influence on the Treasury, I am accused, on the one hand, of having no influence with the Treasury and, on the other, of getting something from the Treasury that I should not have received. What I achieved for local authorities was the right to borrow.
Local authorities were discriminated against. Housing associations were able to borrow against their rents and assets. It was unfair that local authority tenants should be discriminated against because local authorities were not allowed to raise resources against their assets and the income stream to improve the quality of their housing. I have removed that discrimination. I have offered local authorities the opportunity to have the same advantage. That is right. I am grateful for the support of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in that matter.
That opportunity is a major and most welcome change. It will be given to those local authorities that have good management standards, achieve best value and can get on with providing good council housing. The Green Paper is a major step towards a more comprehensive approach to housing. I shall not deal with any more of the questions put by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, as they were wholly irrelevant.
Madam Speaker:
I call Mr. Frank Dobson.
Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras):
May I welcome my right hon. Friend's Green Paper and its recognition of the problems in London, where vital workers, such as nurses and teachers, are being priced out of the city because of the rise in housing costs? I thank him for adopting my suggestion that interest-free and cheap loans for nurses and teachers would be helpful. I urge him to proceed with those proposals as quickly as possible because a large number of hard-working people in London are under severe pressure. We need those teachers and nurses; we cannot afford to lose them because they are being driven out by housing costs.
Mr. Prescott:
Like other hon. Members, I welcome my right hon. Friend to our proceedings today. I am delighted to support his election campaign. I also congratulate him on the campaign he led while he was Secretary of State for Health. That should be properly recorded. I held many discussions with him--as did many of my hon. Friends--on the new starter home initiative. His concern was especially for teachers and nurses, although I know that the issue also became important in relation to the police.
Perhaps I could point out to my right hon. Friend that I have read the South London Press, as one tends to do when one has nothing has else to read--I hope that I do not get into trouble with the South London Press. In an article dated 31 March, the newspaper quotes someone
complaining about the sale of homes set aside for police officers and nurses in London and it accuses the past Administration of selling off police section houses and
police estates and . . . good nursing accommodation.
That seems to be a powerful argument, particularly when it comes from the Tory party's candidate for the mayoral election, Mr. Steven Norris.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |