| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op): Will the hon. Gentleman accept the major thrust of the Barker review, which is that lack of supply is a major contributory factor to house price inflation?
Matthew Green: Lack of supply is one of the contributory factors. The problem with the Barker review is that it considers lack of supply to be the sole driver for house price inflation.
Mr. Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Matthew Green: I gave way and answered the question.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): I do not want to repeat my debate with the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), whom I am pleased to see in his seat. Does the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) agree that the Barker review does not address the rural dynamic? Although the housing market in rural areas is sensitive to supply, supply is not the only factor, and demand management is also important.
Matthew Green: I could not agree more, and the hon. Gentleman makes a point that I touched on earlier. I do not want to consider the Barker review in too much detail because it was debated last week. It would be nice to have a fuller debate on the subject, but this is obviously a wide-ranging debate on housing, and I want to address some of the other issues.
The Minister bears on the right point when he suggests that the Conservatives are attempting to excuse nimbysim when they say, "We need more houses as long as they are not in our areas." To be taken seriously on housing, one must show that one accepts the need for more housing in high-demand areas, which include parts of London and the south-east as well as areas such as the south-west and the Marches.
The Conservatives are right to point to the problem of empty homes, because the Government, as they would probably acknowledge, have not done enough work on bringing empty homes back into use. However, the Conservatives did not offer a solution, and neither did the Minister. If he is working on that, it would have been nice to hear about it.
Ms Oona King:
If the issue of empty homes is such a problem, why do the hon. Gentleman's new-found bedfellows not support the important approach that the Government are taking on compulsory leasing? In a
5 May 2004 : Column 1364
recent consultation, virtually all the respondents—150, bar one—agreed with that policy. Does the hon. Gentleman take a different view?
Matthew Green: In fact, our amendment, which was not selected, supports compulsory leasing. Although the Government have consulted on that, they have not yet come out firmly in favour of it—I hope that they will do so. There is a policy vacuum from the Conservatives, as I said earlier. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I cannot tolerate an exchange going on across the Chamber while the hon. Gentleman is addressing the House.
Matthew Green: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Conservatives are right to highlight the affordability of owner-occupied housing, as well as the supply of social housing, although that does not feature so prominently in their motion. Affordability is a problem not only in London and the south-east, although it is always addressed in those terms, but all over the country—even in the centre of cities such as Liverpool and Newcastle, where 10 miles down the road there may be a low-demand area. It is a complicated situation that cannot be summed up by saying, "Down here in the south-east nobody can afford property, but everywhere else it is cheap and everyone can rush to buy it." The picture is complex and fluid around the country.
One issue that the Conservatives did not mention—indeed, it was barely mentioned at all, although the Minister touched on it in passing—is that of the Government's commitment to the key worker scheme, which provides £1 billion to enable key workers to buy houses. On the face of it, that appears to be an attractive quick-fix scheme, but I challenge the Government on whether it is a sensible use of £1 billion. Giving people money to allow them to purchase houses is an inflationary measure, because it puts money into the housing market and pushes prices up further. It might be necessary for the next year or two until other solutions can be found, but it can only be a stop-gap, because it will serve to further the problem in the long term.
Mr. Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con): Surely the core issue, particularly in London and the south-east, is that national pay bargaining, which applies in many of the public sectors, means that our workers find that they are massively underpaid, which in turn affects constituents who rely on public services. I appreciate that the measure is inflationary, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that that problem goes much deeper than that? For example, many key workers, especially in London communities, work in the private as well as the public sector.
Matthew Green:
The hon. Gentleman has a point, but only just. One stops national pay bargaining at one's peril, because it is frankly unacceptable to suggest that someone doing a job in Shropshire may have a different value from someone doing the same job in, say, Milton Keynes. In many areas, adjustments such as London weighting are made for the cost of living. However, that
5 May 2004 : Column 1365
issue is bigger than the subject of this debate: it is about shifting jobs into the economies of areas other than London and the south-east.
David Wright: Does the hon. Gentleman support the conclusions of the Lyons review, which suggests that major Government Departments should be relocated out of the capital? Does my hon. Friend, as I might call him, think that we should have a few of those in Shropshire?
Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to find that I entirely agree with him. Telford or Shrewsbury would be excellent places in which to relocate a Department, because they have beautiful countryside around them and lots of highly skilled, educated workers who are ready to work. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will persuade his colleagues of his case and that the electorate in Telford will look forward to the success that he personally brings to them.
Hywel Williams (Caernarfon) (PC): May I commend to the hon. Gentleman our experience in Wales in relation to part-ownership schemes, which have been massively over-subscribed and very successful in the short term, but have an inflationary effect on local markets in the long term?
Matthew Green: Such schemes can have all sorts of effects on local housing markets.
I want to make some positive comments. I have had my bit of fun with the Conservatives, so I will leave them alone for a little while. They are very gentle, tender people these days: one cannot push them too much, or they get upset.
The problem of empty homes can be addressed by compulsory leasing, but if any voluntary scheme is to have teeth, there must be a fall-back position to guard against a situation in which somebody fails to bring one of their properties into use. I do not believe that the fall-back position should be compulsory purchase, as has been mooted at various times, because the person who owns the property should have the right to retain that ownership. Compulsory leasing is the sensible way forward. I am glad to see Conservative Front Benchers nodding, because a year ago that would not have been the case. Perhaps the change in Front Benchers means that we can achieve cross-party unity.
I hope that the Minister will be able to introduce compulsory leasing into the Housing Bill before it completes its passage. If he were really committed to such a measure, he would ensure that it reached the statute book as soon as possible. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) will be able to confirm that that is the Government's intention.
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD) rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Sue Doughty.
Mrs. Brooke: It is Annette Brooke, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I apologise to the hon. Lady. I think I have made that mistake in the past, and I must humble myself for having made it again.
5 May 2004 : Column 1366
Mrs. Brooke: Despite the very welcome announcement about children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, does my hon. Friend agree, given that Shelter has identified that more than 1 million children are living in bad conditions to which they wake up every morning and which affect their health, education and future prospects; that the cross-party fire that we have heard is a diversion from the real issues; and that we should be putting forward positive solutions?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |