11 July 2007 : Column 1383
11 July 2007 : Column 1383
11 July 2007 : Column 1383
Wednesday, 11 July 2007.
The House met at three o'clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle): the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack.
Introduction: Baroness Vadera
Baroness Vadera—Shriti Vadera, having been created Baroness Vadera, of Holland Park in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Ashton of Upholland and the Lord Joffe, and made the solemn affirmation.
Housing: Overcrowding
3.06 pm
Baroness Scott of Needham Market asked Her Majesty’s Government:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Andrews): My Lords, we are very conscious that the present statutory definition is long out of date and are considering how and when to update the standard. However, we do not believe that that in itself will solve overcrowding without having the levers in place to help overcrowded families. We have, for example, invested more than £40 million in London pilot schemes to provide innovative solutions to some of the worst cases of overcrowding.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, the current statutory definition of overcrowding dates back to 1935. It discounts children under the age of 12 months and counts kitchens as bedrooms. Why have the Government taken three years since giving an undertaking to amend the definition when the Housing Bill was going through and yet we still have no action on that?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right about the definition. I would not defend it—nobody in government would. But merely changing the definition could be mere tokenism if we did not have a strategy in place to address the most serious forms of overcrowding, which is exactly what we have. In the consultation process we identified the need to take incremental action, and we have a range of strategies in place. We are investing heavily in London—with some £40 million as I have said; putting support into local authorities when they have critical problems; and looking at innovative ways in which to convert homes as well as build new homes.
11 July 2007 : Column 1384
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, how can the Minister have a strategy if she does not know how many rooms are needed or how many bedrooms are acceptable?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we do. If we had a modern definition of the bedroom standard, half a million families would qualify. There is no point in us imposing that definition unless we are sure that local authorities can deal with the problem, which is the point of investing in housing supply. Overcrowding cannot be solved by one strategy; there must be a whole approach to building more homes and converting them and building more social homes as well.
Baroness Ford: My Lords, is there a particular problem with overcrowding in relation to London? What steps are the Government taking to address this?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, that is absolutely right. It is essentially a London problem. If noble Lords look at the figures, they will find, for example, that 200,000 families in the capital across all tenures are in overcrowded accommodation—that is one in five children, compared with 7 per cent in the rest of the country. That is why we have put £500,000 into just sub-regional co-ordinators’ work to bring innovative practice to local authorities, £20 million specifically to create houses with extra bedrooms, and £19 million to create more than 500 new homes, working through pilots. We have to look at every way we can to solve this problem through building, especially social housing.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware of the many reports that have come out from Shelter over the years about the disadvantage educationally for young children in overcrowded accommodation. Will she impress on her colleagues across government that that really needs to be addressed? I find it extraordinary that it has not been when so much time has been put into trying to improve the educational achievement of children. Even yesterday, there was a Statement on that matter. Can she please explain why there has not been any joined-up thinking in this area?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, there has been a lot of joined-up thinking, particularly through Sure Start. Many families in overcrowded accommodation are by definition the poorest. Many of them come from BME communities and are able to access Sure Start. We are very conscious indeed of the impact that being brought up in a poor and overcrowded home can have. That is why we are putting more than £700,000 into five London boroughs to improve the well-being of families and to look at strategies for supporting them.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, as the Minister said, overcrowding is one of the reasons for building new housing. However, does she support the view that was taken by her right honourable friend the Secretary of State in the other place yesterday when she said that in order to provide sufficient land for housing, the green belt should cease to be protected?
11 July 2007 : Column 1385
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am sure that is not what my right honourable friend would have said because in the recent planning Statement we made it clear that we had absolutely no intention of compromising the green belt. We have built hugely on brownfield sites and we have well exceeded our target on those sites. As we come to build the affordable homes that we need we will look at ways of using more brownfield sites precisely with that in mind.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, what are the Government’s plans in relation to what the Prime Minister said earlier today in the other place about extending the house building programme each year? Will that have any bearing on relieving overcrowding, especially in the boroughs that she mentioned?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I know that the House is waiting eagerly for the Statement to be repeated and I do not want to pre-empt it. However, it is a great pleasure to us that housing is seen by the Prime Minister as such a priority, particularly housing supply and increasing social housing. We increased social housing by 50 per cent between 2005 and 2008 and we look forward to doing much more.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, although we welcome a national strategy, at the end of the day there is a great part to be played by local authorities in this matter, and there is a very disparate record. Do the Government have it in mind to winkle out those authorities which, by any definition, are recalcitrant in building houses and will they be dealt with effectively?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we prefer to offer incentives rather than penalties. Carrots are usually better than sticks. But certainly through our new planning and housing policy, PPS 3, we are making it easier for local authorities to assess their local housing needs and giving them more assistance in determining how much they need to build, the sort of houses—for example, the larger, family homes—they need to build and in releasing more land.
Olympic Games 2012: Facilities for Worship
3.13 pm
Lord James of Blackheath asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What dedicated facilities for worship they will provide as part of the Olympic village, hospitality and residential arrangements for the 2012 Olympic Games.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, London 2012 is committed to the provision of a multi-faith centre in the Olympic village. The work on scoping out the exact nature and location of this provision is ongoing as part of the planning. The London organising committee has been working with representatives of different faiths, and will continue to do so to ensure that appropriate facilities are provided.
11 July 2007 : Column 1386
Lord James of Blackheath: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer but, as I understand it, the IOC requirements stipulate separate religious arrangements for five major faiths. In the circumstances will the Minister reconsider the previous decision not to appoint a faith adviser in order to overcome the difficulties which may arise from this apparent neglect?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we certainly intend to comply with the International Olympic Committee’s requirements. We are making arrangements to be in contact with significant leaders of all faiths to ensure that we fulfil this remit. The House can rest assured that we are fully aware of our obligation. It will recall that the London bid was successful because we were able to demonstrate the multi-faith and multi-ethnic dimension to London, which was a very attractive point in securing the Games.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, will the Government put new urgency into such co-operation between people of different faiths? The Olympic Games, which I support fully, bring together people from various nationalities, backgrounds and faiths. What a golden opportunity to build bridges and to get better understanding.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as I hope I have already indicated, of course the Government are eager to seize the opportunity provided by the Olympic Games in providing for multi-faith worship in the Olympic village. We will also emphasise that there will be a warm welcome for people from all faiths in such a diverse community as London represents. The noble Lord is right that the Olympic Games, which are a cultural as well as a sporting event, offer a great opportunity for advancing exactly the issues that the noble Lord has identified.
Lord Mawhinney: My Lords, will the Minister undertake on behalf of the Government to facilitate constructive conversations between the Olympic authorities and any committee that may be set up by the churches and wider Christian organisations in this country to address the issues listed in this Question? I declare a putative interest, insomuch as I may have an involvement in any such committee when it is set up.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is certainly good advice. The Government are seized of the obvious fact that the Olympic committee will need to identify contributions from all faiths, particularly the Christian faith, in terms of a great deal of our representation. It will be recognised that these are multi-faith provisions for the Games, and LOCOG will not be doing its job if it does not liaise with significant representative institutions of all faiths.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, although I do not present myself as any authority on Biblical text, are we not advised that,
There will be ample opportunity for religious dialogue, but it does not necessarily depend on having buildings for a two-week period.
11 July 2007 : Column 1387
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend has established his authority on all matters on which he comments to the House. He is right that a building is not an absolute requirement for multi-faith exchange, but we are urged to provide a place of worship and respect for each faith appropriate to that faith, and we are setting out to do so. There is a certain diversity of demand on this, and the Olympic authorities will be obliged to provide accordingly.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a significant aspect of the Olympic project is the regeneration that the Olympics will bring to some of the needier communities in London? In view of the importance now being attached to the role of spiritual capital in all regeneration processes, how are Her Majesty’s Government working to enable the churches and other faith groups to be full partners in the regeneration aspects of the project as well as the worship?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is absolutely right, and he will recognise the diversity of the community for which this legacy is to be provided. He will appreciate that the intention is that all should benefit from the Games. I said that the Games are more than just an athletic and sporting event but are also a cultural event. There is also the Olympic ideal, which is about the unity of people from all over the world. Surely that is the best legacy that we can offer the community.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, will the Minister clarify that responsibility for the hospitality to multi-faiths will lie with LOCOG and that any construction required to satisfy that is already in the ODA budget?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord is right on both counts. There may be some adjustments to certain aspects of the building to take account of particular faiths’ requirements, but the planning of the buildings and the concept are to meet our obligations. The noble Lord is absolutely right; it is LOCOG’s responsibility.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, how many faiths have been provided for?
Lord Davies of Oldham: Five, my Lords.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is very important that competition in the Olympic Games should not extend to the provision of worship facilities for individual religions. There should be communal provision, not facilities provided for individual faiths, which would introduce a competitive element?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I do not think that there is any question of a competitive element. The noble Lord is right: broadly we are seeking to provide a building to encompass the needs of all faiths; but some provision will be needed to meet the
11 July 2007 : Column 1388
Baroness Tonge: My Lords, if the Government are required to provide buildings for all faiths on the Olympic site, could he please consider athletes of a secular nature, who might like to have somewhere to go to get away from all the warring religions?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I cannot think of an arena that will be better for putting aside the world’s ills and concentrating on the world’s good points than international competition in sport and athletics.
EU: Climate Change
3.22 pm
Lord Dykes asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What further discussions they propose to hold on climate change matters at the next meeting of the European Union Council of Environment Ministers.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the Council agenda is set by the presidency. However, we understand that at the next meeting of the EU Council of Environment Ministers on 30 October, climate change discussions are likely to focus on agreeing the EU’s mandate for negotiations at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties in Bali in December.
Lord Dykes: My Lords, admittedly, the Portuguese President is armed, usefully, with the name Socrates, but is the Minister really confident that there has not already been some slippage in the formulation of the initial plans for the Union’s programme on climate change control? Is the Minister aware, for example, that there is a serious worry about slippage on the 20 per cent renewables target? Is he confident that at the October meeting, Her Majesty’s Government and other Governments led by the Portuguese presidency will make significant proposals to take this programme forward in an energetic way?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the short answer is yes. The EU is giving a lead on this. It is a 27-strong group that has large negotiating clout, and if we operate as a group, we can be successful. What was decided at the spring Council of Ministers and by heads of government was broadly welcomed by the framework convention. Therefore, we are showing the necessary leadership; so I can answer yes, broadly, to the question.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that insufficient attention is being given to this very important subject at an international level? Would he agree that while it is important for the European Union to consider this matter, it should
11 July 2007 : Column 1389
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we are heading towards the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties. It meets four times a year and will meet in Bali in December. The 30 October meeting of the EU is a preparation for that. My noble friend says that insufficient attention is being paid by the UN, but, frankly, the facts do not bear that out. This a world issue; the EU is playing a leading role in this, but is guided by the United Nations, because we have to get a joint agreement as far as possible between developed and developing countries.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, when will the Government have the wisdom to recognise that Europe is isolated on this issue, and that the United States, India, China and Japan—to name only major nations—have made it clear that they will have no part in fixed targets for carbon dioxide emissions? Therefore, for the United Kingdom to bind itself to the most restrictive targets in the whole of Europe, which is out on a limb, will merely condemn this country’s economy and do great damage for no purpose whatever.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not think the facts bear that out. I understand the noble Lord’s position. It is true that we have to have wider involvement; it is important to get movement from the United States, Australia, Japan and, indeed, China, which is on the move. This is being done not just within the EU with us promulgating what is happening, but within the United Nations framework convention. The whole point is to get agreement that encompasses movement from developing countries as well as the developed countries. There has to be movement from the developed countries, and it will be no good if the United States and others stay outside. All the signs are that they are coming inside.
Lord Teverson: My Lords, the Minister is right to mention China. Back in 2005, there was an EU and China Partnership on Climate Change. What concrete results have come out of that partnership, and what leverage does the European Council wish to make on China in its future plans on climate change and energy?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, in the past few months there has been evidence that climate change has risen up the agenda for the Chinese Government. In January this year, they established a national advisory panel on climate change, providing scientific evidence to formulate strategies and guidelines on policies and regulations. They are seeing some of the damage that is being done to their own environment and economy and to the health of the Chinese population. It is not a question of them remaining isolated. Nevertheless, they will move at a different pace. It is right for developed countries to show a lead in this matter.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |