| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Don Foster (Bath): Why the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is with us is, I suppose, beyond our Ken. However, we are delighted to see him here.
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his courtesy in letting me have advance notice of his statement. We acknowledge that the Green Paper is a consultation document and we look forward to participating in the discussions that will follow. We welcome much that is in the document: the proposals for a more flexible housing market; the speeding up of house sales; the wider definition of homelessness, which is long overdue; and the promise of action on leasehold reform.
However, we have concerns on three issues. First, although it is important to offer new powers and responsibilities to local councils, giving them those powers and responsibilities without the promise of additional resources is meaningless. They must be told how they will fund new loans, how they will have the money for increased discretionary grants and how they will make payments to home improvement agencies. The proposals will be useless unless they receive the promise of additional funding.
Secondly, I simply fail to understand why, apart from the few headline-grabbing proposals, any real reform of housing benefit has been kicked into the long grass. The Government promised us that they would take tough decisions, but on this issue, at least, they appear to have chickened out.
Thirdly, why is the Deputy Prime Minister so totally besotted with stock housing transfer? Why, in the latest proposals, will he allow councils to borrow additional money only if they are prepared to privatise their housing management systems? Surely there should be a level playing field in which housing associations and councils can borrow money on equal terms. Tenants could then choose. At present, they can choose anything that they like so long as they say yes to transfer. That is like having a pistol put to their heads.
Mr. Prescott:
I am most grateful for the warm support that the hon. Gentleman gave to the Green Paper. I hope that it will start a debate and achieve the consensus that we want. Resolving the problems will take longer than the term of any one Government. There is a desperate desire to reach consensus; the problems of housing finance, and particularly housing benefit, mean that one must achieve considerable agreement. We will achieve nothing if Governments continually seek to change policy. On housing benefits and rents, we must take a long-term view; anyone considering the problem knows that that is true. By keeping the Green Paper green, by not coming to conclusions and by holding discussions, I hope that I am able to achieve such consensus.
That does not mean that we are not doing anything. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has done much in the Department of Social Security to
deal with such matters. As I said earlier, it is important that we get a proper balance to deal with fraud and to improve administration. However, the real problem is with structural reform. People should recognise that and realise that it is a long-term problem involving--let us make no mistake about it--many political difficulties. We have started to make changes and we look forward to considerable debate and discussion on them.
On local authorities and stock housing, I cannot have made myself clear to the hon. Gentleman--even though I thought that I had. Ownership of the stock remains with the local authority; it is not passed over as with other stock transfers. He should bear in mind that local authorities have pushed us to take a different approach so that they can have access to resources to improve the quality of their stock after such massive disinvestment has taken place. In some cases, they are stock transfers, which were offered by the previous Administration in 1988, and PFIs have been pushed by some local authorities. I have opened a new possibility. Local authorities will keep the ownership of the assets--it is not privatisation--and they will borrow against the income and the assets.
In some local authorities--Burnley is one--the overhanging debt is too great compared with the value of the houses to obtain a private finance arrangement. We are making some changes to deal with such cases. I am offering another option--giving local authorities another opportunity. As for resources, the on-going spending review will measure the sums going into housing. A combination of a new source of borrowing and new resources resulting from the spending review will deal with the housing changes.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton):
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the best statement on housing since I was Minister in charge of housing in the last Labour Government. After that time, the Conservatives ended the council house building programme and caused appalling problems for owner-occupiers. My right hon. Friend is putting that right. I especially congratulate him on dealing with collusive fraud between private landlords and their tenants, which, in inner city areas such as my constituency, is a stain on housing finance.
I thank my right hon. Friend for pioneering pilot schemes and suggest that the Gorton division of Manchester would be a good place to run one. I have received strong representations from many constituents living in local authority estates saying that they want to have the right to remain council house tenants. Despite all the shortcomings that may affect council house management, council housing is accountable in a way that even Housing Corporation housing is not. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend can provide assurances for me to take back to Manchester.
Mr. Prescott:
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's warm support: his record as a Minister in the Department of the Environment and in housing matters is so considerable that I should be grateful to leave with a similar reputation--I am working on it.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will make a bid for his area to host a pilot scheme and that he will be a powerful advocate for it. He makes an important point about tenants' rights. The first housing action trust introduced by the previous Administration was in my
constituency. Those who remember the debates at that time will know that the Tories took the view that tenants should have no say. However, they found that no one would take up the scheme, so when the first one was introduced in the Hull area, tenants had the right to vote; they all voted to return to local authority control.
We think that tenants' rights are important: tenants should have considerable influence over where they live, how they live and what happens to them. That is why we shall ensure that there is accountability and that none of the schemes will be introduced without tenants' agreement.
Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar):
In chapter 11 of the Green Paper, the Deputy Prime Minister lays down seven commitments on housing benefit, all of which fall well short of its fundamental reform. Is he aware that the list bears an uncanny resemblance to a list published in Housing Today, which stated that the measures had been considered by the Government a year ago, but had been dismissed as inadequate tinkering on the fringe? How has the passage of a year turned measures that were dismissed as tinkering on the fringe into fundamental reforms of housing benefit? Is not the truth that the wheels have fallen off welfare reform?
Mr. Prescott:
The hon. Gentleman asks me to comment on a leak and on reports of the Government's views. We do not think that our measures constitute tinkering; they make a contribution to the discussion that we shall have to have about housing benefit, and to radical change. The previous Administration introduced housing benefit and watched it increase from £2 billion to £11 billion, yet they did little to check fraud. It is important that we deal with fraud, but issues of administration, how to deal with people, how to apply the benefit and rent structure are all fundamental.
I believe that there will be fundamental reforms, once agreement is reached, but I do not kid myself that there is not a long and controversial road to be trod before we achieve that. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is tinkering, I can live with that, but I think that the measures contribute to radical change.
Mr. Clive Soley (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush):
May I express my delight that my right hon. Friend has put quality and affordability back at the top of the housing agenda, after they were removed by the Conservative party for all those years? Will he make sure that we keep mobility up there as a major priority? People want to choose the area in which they live, and they want to choose whether to rent or buy, and to interchange between the rented and purchase sectors at different stages of their life, as events dictate. I welcome the Green Paper immensely and I hope that my right hon. Friend carries it forward.
Mr. Prescott:
I thank my hon. Friend for his words of support. I well remember when he was the shadow spokesman on housing, and the emphasis that he placed on mobility and quality. However, he does himself less than justice. There is one aspect of my statement today that he should especially welcome. He was the man who made a statement, as I did supporting him, suggesting that
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |