---

 
8 Mar 2006 : Column 803
 

House of Commons

Wednesday 8 March 2006

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

The unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker having been announced, The Chairman of Ways and Means took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Oral Answers to Questions

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Council Tax

1. Mr. David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con): What the average band D council tax was in London boroughs in (a) 1997–98 and (b) 2005–06. [56642]

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Phil Woolas): The average band D two-adult council tax bill in London boroughs was £651 in 1997–98 and £1,162 in 2005–06.

Mr. Evennett: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that there is great anger in my borough of Bexley at the increases over the past eight years, with another one to come in April? Families and pensioners have been hit hard by those increases, and in addition there is the very unpopular Olympic levy. How does he justify those rises?

Mr. Woolas: I advise the House that in the same period, the central Government grant to local authorities increased by some 78.5 per cent. in cash terms, representing more than 38 per cent. in real terms. Indeed, the figures for the hon. Gentleman's own local authority for the coming two years show grant increases, including in the dedicated schools budget, of 5.6 and 4.9 per cent.—generous figures, I believe.

Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op): Is not the real problem that the unified business rate has been held to the rate of inflation over the past eight or nine years? Does the Minister agree that the business community needs to make a greater contribution to the provision of local services, and that it is time that it did so?

Mr. Woolas: I remind the House that the Valuation Office Agency undertook a very successful revaluation of businesses that resulted in a revenue-neutral increase in income from non-domestic business rates. This issue
 
8 Mar 2006 : Column 804
 
is of course being considered by the Lyons review of local authority funding, and we look forward to Sir Michael's recommendations.

Sarah Teather (Brent, East) (LD): Since he took up office, the Deputy Prime Minister has earned five times as much as the average Londoner, but his council tax bill—when he eventually paid it—was less than half their average bill. Does the Minister think that fair?

Mr. Woolas: Given the improvement in London's public services, including in the hon. Lady's own borough, and the extra investment that this Government have been able to make, including in her own borough, all as a result of the successful economic policies pursued by this Government, she should be congratulating the Deputy Prime Minister and not seeking to score points.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Beckenham) (Con): The London Mayor's levy on council tax payers has more than doubled since he was first elected. According to the Government, he and the Greater London authority were meant to cost Londoners thruppence a week. Who is to blame—the Labour Government or the Labour Mayor?

Mr. Woolas: The hon. Lady seems to have forgotten that it was the people of London who voted to establish the GLA, after the previous Conservative Government had abolished the Greater London council without so much as a by your leave. Subsequently, the Mayor of London has been re-elected. So her argument is not with me but with the people of Greater London.

Social Housing

2. John Robertson (Glasgow, North-West) (Lab): What assessment his Department has made of the impact of right to buy on the provision of social housing by local authorities. [56643]

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): We have taken action through the Housing Act 2004 to reduce the abuse of right to buy, and we have cut the discounts for 41 housing-pressured areas. As a result, total sales have fallen, but we remain committed to helping people into home ownership. New opportunities are being offered through our homebuy schemes, and the provision of social rented housing is increasing. This will be a priority in the current spending review.

John Robertson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. While I accept that the right to buy has been very important to a lot of people—not least to some in my constituency—does he agree that local authorities need to provide social housing as well as making houses available through the right to buy? Is it not time that we looked at the rules governing social housing and helped those councils that want to supply good housing for people who cannot afford to buy?

The Deputy Prime Minister: As I said, the action that we took in dealing with abuse of the right to buy led eventually to a reduction in the number of people
 
8 Mar 2006 : Column 805
 
buying through that process, particularly in the London area. Through homebuy schemes, we are offering other opportunities to 300,000 more tenants, but we are constantly reviewing the situation. My hon. Friend must recognise that our decent homes programme has benefited more than 1 million people. Many people in his constituency will have benefited from that programme, as well as from the provision of housing in the public and private sectors.

Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister is in favour of encouraging a property-owning democracy. If so, does he agree with me that housing association tenants have been badly discriminated against and should be given the right to buy their homes?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that tenants of housing associations already have the right to buy, but to extend that to the right to acquire would cost around £1 billion more. We must make a judgment about the best use of public money. Tenants have the right to buy, but to extend that to the right to acquire would be expensive and also create financial problems for housing associations, as the previous Tory Administration noted, which was why they failed to implement that change.

Christine Russell (City of Chester) (Lab): My right hon. Friend will know from his local links that the social housing stock of the city of Chester was decimated by the right to buy. As a result the average house price in Chester is now £180,000, which is 10 times the salary of a newly qualified nurse or teacher. Can he give me an assurance that in the next round of the comprehensive spending review his Department will recognise the housing needs of people on relatively low wages who live in housing hot spots in the north? We have problems in the north—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The Deputy Prime Minister probably has the gist of that question.

The Deputy Prime Minister: I can reassure my hon. Friend on that point. She will know from the Chancellor's pre-Budget report that he said that greater priority would be given to social housing, and we await the Budget.

Alistair Burt (North-East Bedfordshire) (Con): The Deputy Prime Minister is right to recognise the failure to deliver new social housing under his Government, as the number of completions in 2004–05 was barely 56 per cent. of the completions 10 years ago under the Conservative Government. If the failure to provide social housing is of such concern, why have he and his Department stood back and done nothing to address the allegations that registered social landlords in Liverpool have, over several years, been voiding and tinning up good quality homes, contributing to the dereliction of areas and encouraging the demolition, not refurbishment of properties, which is at the heart of the growing resentment in Liverpool at the progress of the pathfinder programme? Why has he done nothing to address that failure by social landlords?
 
8 Mar 2006 : Column 806
 

The Deputy Prime Minister: It is interesting to note that the Conservatives have discovered Liverpool again, perhaps to try to obtain some electoral representation in the area—because they have none at present. Let us be clear about the position. We made a judgment in 1997 that we should put more resources into improving 2 million homes that had been left in less than decent conditions by the previous Administration, who—six years before—had halved the amount of money invested in housing. We have improved more than 1 million houses. They may not be new houses, but people who live in them appreciate the new kitchens, bathrooms and central heating, which make a difference to their quality of life. The right-to-buy programme was at the expense of millions of tenants who saw the standard of their houses falling. We have been correcting that.

---