Welfare

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

I am grateful to have the opportunity to pay tribute to Iain Duncan Smith. He was a remarkable champion for reform in the welfare state. I say with feeling that there is a reason why no one has transformed the system in the last 70 or 80 years and that is that it is very difficult to do. He had the political guts to get on and do it, and I am very proud to have supported him in getting the programme as far as it is. I think that he will go down in history for that achievement.

As my noble friend said, the OBR forecast shows that we gave more money to the disabled in the last Parliament, and the same is projected for this Parliament. In particular, a real-terms increase in the area of PIP/DLA is now baked in. My noble friend is of course right that the next step in the process is the need to find the right way to help disabled people back into the workplace and to achieve our objective of halving the disability gap.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord gave an assurance that the DWP will not replace the £4.4 billion of savings from the PIP programme, which it is now going to abandon, with cuts elsewhere in the DWP budget. However, he has not answered the obvious and important question of how those savings are going to be compensated. Surely there are only three possibilities. They will have to be compensated by spending cuts in other departments, by tax increases or by an increase in the fiscal budget being run by the Government. Which is it, or will it be a combination of all three? Surely it is the height of fiscal irresponsibility simply to announce that £4.4 billion of projected savings will no longer be arriving without any idea at all of how they will be replaced.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State are saying that at the Autumn Statement we will look at the whole picture and at how the finances of the country should be organised. At that stage, there will be lots of moving parts and we will be able to see how this fits in.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Monday 21st December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. He was quite friendly towards me about raising this matter in Committee. It was the noble Lord who drew my attention to Clause 20. I had not known about it. As will become clear, it is to the Minister we owe this debate because he alerted us to these banker-sized salaries in answering a question a couple of years ago.

In the 1970s, I was in the Commons when the scheme to replace the old invalid trike was set up, so I am aware of the positive change. When I had a proper job before I was an MP, I used to work in Thames Ditton as production manager at a loudspeaker company. AC Cars Ltd, which was in Thames Ditton, built what was known as the invalid trike, the single seater. Like my noble friend I make no comment on the Motability scheme, save to say that it has given access to mobility for some 4 million people over the years. I hope that it will for years to come.

Given that we are dealing with public money, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. It should go beyond the PAC and at least include the DWP Select Committee, which has never shown any interest in this, and the Charity Commission, which is useless as the regulator of charities. Implementing the amendment at least would lead to an inquiry into the finances of the scheme.

DWP is paying the Motability charity around £20 million. The charity gets about £7 million in lease levy from the vehicles used. It has an income of about £30 million. The charity, which is more than 60% dependent on government funds—this is public money but not in the way we expect public money to be raised; it is government money from the DWP paid to the charity—has two employees on more than £160,000, which is more than the Prime Minister earns, and another employee is on a six-figure salary. Last week, when the Times exposed anger about six-figure charity pay deals, it did not mention this, but it could well have looked at the Motability charity, which is supported and 60% paid for by the DWP. We are not talking about individual donors—this is a straightforward 59.6%, according to the latest accounts. That is partly responsible, in duty, for the whacking great salaries of the charity, and that is before we come to the operations arm. One of the chief executives of the charity is on more than £170,000, another is on more than £160,000 and someone else is on between £100,000 and £110,000. As I say, this is a charity that is 60% paid for by the Department for Work and Pensions.

But the main scheme, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, said, is operated by Motability Operations group, which is a company owned by four banks: Barclays, Lloyds, HSBC and the Royal Bank of Scotland. It operates as a contractor to and is directed and overseen by the charity. This, for me, is the crucial link to where public funds are involved. It is public money we are talking about here, but there seems to be no real accountability. The revenue of the company is around £2 billion from the operating leases and £2 billion from the resale of vehicles at the end of the three-year lease. Some 600 cars a day are placed on the second-hand car market. As I said in the debate earlier this year, I am well aware that someone in my family once had such a car. Motability Operations claims that it gets no money from the Government. It states that on page 4 of its latest accounts. But the £2 billion from the leases is in fact the DWP Motability payment to more than half a million people, and because they have agreed to assign their DWP allowance to the scheme, the money is paid directly to Motability Operations. That is what Clause 20 is all about.

I support Clause 20, by the way, and in my view it ought to be retrospective in order to claw some public money back from this company and thus enable the Government to recover their costs. There is a direct link, and this clause is the missing piece of the jigsaw. After our debate in February I went to the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office and the Charity Commission, but no one wanted to know. They said, “It is not public money so it is nothing to do with us”. This clause links it all together, so it is a really useful one and I am grateful that it is in the Bill.

As my noble friend said, the chief executive of the operations company is on a package of more than £900,000. The chair is on a package of £195,000 and a handful of directors—fewer than five, I think—take £3.3 million between them. There are also loads of long-term incentives for the CEO and the directors. The whole system depends on the DWP payment, which Clause 20 makes clear; it shows the direct link. As such, the NAO and the PAC should take a look at it, and that is what the amendment is about. The Charity Commission should be interested in the governance arrangements. It could ask, for example, why the chair of the company operations remuneration committee thinks it right to stand down after two three-year terms, as set out on page 43 of the accounts, and yet the charity trustees have been serving for four decades. I repeat: four decades. When you ask the Charity Commission about it, all it ever gives you is the last time they were elected. Of course, they are all on something like three-year terms, but no one is interested.

I have to say that Alan Yentob came unstuck after serving loyally as a trustee at Kids Company for 18 years because after that length of time he could not tell the difference between management and governance. His 18 years as a trustee is less than half that of some of the Motability trustees, but the Charity Commission does not seem to bat an eyelid about it. There is a strong case for the Nolan principles of public life being applied to the third sector, which of course they are not, but I think they would cover this point. In short, we have here a service that everyone agrees is a public good. There is no argument about that. But it is based on public funds and however the risk factors are dressed up—they are minimal in comparison with the real private sector—they are being used to pay these banker-sized salaries. Of course, I accept that the second-hand car market is highly specialised, but let us face it, it is the biggest company going with 600 cars a day feeding into the market.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

I was hoping to catch my noble friend before he sat down, which I thought he was about to do.

I am very grateful to my noble friend, and I think the whole House will probably be very grateful to both him and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for raising this fascinating matter. I have two questions to put to him. Normally speaking, a high salary is justified, where it can be justified at all, either by the high risk incurred by the person who is receiving it or by the great competitive merits of that person in showing great skill in the face of competition. Can my noble Friend tell the House, first, what risk is being run by the operations company in this case? How risky is its business? Secondly, how much competition is there for this business, or does the operations company have an effective monopoly on the motability business in this country?

[Lord Rooker]

I am grateful to my noble friend and I will come to that very point because it is crucial. I am not clear what the banks get out of this; I do not believe that they are doing it for nothing. The Library has not been able to explain it to me anyway.

That brings me to my final point and I will cover the points made by my noble friend. As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, said, there is another £180 million in another charity within the Motability charity sitting there doing virtually nothing. The Motability Tenth Anniversary Trust was set up by the Motability charity. It has the same trustees, an income of £50 million a year and expenditure of £5 million. It has assets of £180 million. It has no employees or volunteers, so it cannot possibly be fulfilling the public benefit rules for charities on those figures. I checked them again on the web the other day.

The website AccountingWEB had some interesting points to make. It referred to the asset seemingly sitting around not doing much. The original funding for this charity within a charity was 50% from Motability Operations, the company, and 50% from the DWP. There is a direct link with this charity within a charity—50% of it was funded by the DWP to start with. Does it mean that the not-for-profit status of operations is maintained by recycling the Motability Operations profits back into the Motability Tenth Anniversary Trust in order to swell the coffers, and so avoid tax? It asked whether this incestuous arrangement is there because someone has worked out a way to get their hands on it, and in due course extract it from the trust. Again, this is a direct link—the DWP funded 50% of the charity within a charity. It funds 60% of the main charity so it is directly responsible for the salaries of the charity staff. I fully accept it is the Motability Operations company that is responsible for the real bankers’ salaries—almost £1 million for the chief exec.

I am coming to the end. The Treasury, I understand, loses around £350 million in VAT by this whole complex set-up. Operations installed a new IT system in August. It cost around £100 million but did not provide any upgrade to functionality. I am reliably informed that this required a lot of hospitality and team rebuilding—all on the cash of people with a disability.

Maybe it is time, as the notes on Clause 20 say, or envisage, to bring some competition into the market because there is no competition. Clause 20 is set up where it envisages that there might be another provider. Well, there is not. In some ways, if the DWP wanted to get its hands clean and do some real governance on this—and the Government, because they are all part of the issue—a bit of competition would not go amiss. That is where we come in. The opportunity of Clause 20 is useful for the Select Committee in the other place which, as far as I know, has not batted an eyelid. The issue has been raised very occasionally but not properly. It has never been taken seriously by the Government or the department.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, that was a thoroughly enjoyable debate for this time of the evening. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, is directed at Motability, which provides vehicles at discounted rates to people whose disability or long-term health condition has a significant effect on their mobility. It is run on a day-to-day basis by Motability Operations, a limited company, and is overseen by the Motability charity.

On the specific questions about Clause 20 that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, I can say that the Government divert benefit payments directly to Motability but the administrative costs of the diversion have been borne by the Government, who do not have the power to recoup them. Clause 20 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to do so. Such a power would currently apply only to Motability but it is drafted broadly to enable the provision to apply to any organisation running a future scheme.

I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that the cost is small—less than £1 million, I think—and Motability has confirmed that it will not change its pricing or the level of service it provides. Therefore, it will have no impact on its members.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, asked about information on directors’ remuneration and relevant interests. That is available in the annual and interim accounts of Motability Operations, in compliance with international financial reporting standards. These can be found on its website, which is where I found them on the occasion referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. Indeed, it publishes information on its board meetings in the same place.

The department meets regularly with Motability to discuss the scheme’s performance. I know that this does not overly impress the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, but as a charity, Motability is accountable to the Charity Commission. It is therefore unnecessary to require Motability to submit the annual report that is the formal subject of the amendment, because the information is there.

I will run through some of the rather surprising number of other issues. On overhead costs, Ernst & Young found that Motability was driving down its overhead costs, while satisfaction was rising. On the monopoly question, we have regular meetings and consider the value for money that Motability provides. The banks own Motability shares but they have waived all dividends and received no profit.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The Minister has moved on rather rapidly. He brushed past the quite important issue of a monopoly without going into it. What seems to arise from this situation is that we have here a government department—the Department for Work and Pensions—which has given a contract on a monopoly basis to a charity, which appears then to have given its business on a monopoly basis to a public company. One could imagine that that structure could easily be used elsewhere. It is a very attractive idea: a nice little number and a cosy arrangement for those receiving the salaries and getting the other benefits from the circulation of public money in that way. That is the basis of the concern about monopoly. Maybe the Minister would like to enlighten the House if I am wrong. It would be interesting to know whether the Government have done anything to encourage competition or to see whether any alternative providers might be interested in getting into this market.

[Lord Freud]

I was able to say that the department considered value for money and had drawn up this clause to allow for other providers. That is as far as I can go at this stage. Motability is a long-established and very well-loved organisation; that is the current position.

On the second charity, the Motability-run fund is used to support the objectives of Motability and is not government-run. The remuneration of Motability Operations directors, and indeed those of the charity, is a matter to be decided by Motability.

Employment

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wrigglesworth (LD)]

My Lords, encouraging though those national figures are—

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Skelmersdale (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, there is no recognised definition of full employment as far as the economics profession is concerned. The Government’s measure of full employment will be released in the first progress report on the full employment Bill.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords—

[Baroness Corston (Lab)]

My Lords—

Pensions: Draw-down Charges

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

That is one of the things that we will look at very closely. Clearly, we need to get evidence of how this particular part of the market develops. We already have transparency in the accumulation phase. If that is necessary in the decumulation phase, we will not hesitate to introduce it.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, you do not need to wait to watch the market to believe that transparency is absolutely essential in any honest financial business. Why cannot the Government decide that there should be complete transparency of charges from the beginning? Should they not have decided that at the outset, when they introduced this new reform?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we have a marketplace and it is fair to give it a chance to develop. At the moment, according to the FT and Which?, the annual charges applied to decumulation pots are somewhere between 0.25% and, for high-end performers, 1%. For the set-up, the charge is somewhere between £70 and £300. As we start to gather this evidence and assess it, we will know whether we need to intervene.

Youth Employment

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Wednesday 30th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

Youth unemployment is different in its nature from general unemployment in that there is a scarring effect for the young if they do not get into the workforce early. We therefore need to make extra effort to get youngsters into the workforce, which many of our measures are designed to do. There has been a real recasting of support for youngsters, whether through training, education or apprenticeships, and we are providing this support for them through the Work Programme, the jobcentres and work experience. We have myriad programmes, and they are actually having an effect. We are now seeing very steep falls. It is not yet good enough but it is moving aggressively in the right direction.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, of course it is a priority—

[Noble Lords]

Bishop!

[Lord Freud]

Obviously we have looked at the living wage. If the figure suggested for the living wage were to be adopted, we would have to consider the impact on unemployment and the particular impact on youngsters, who would be hit worst. The NIESR estimated that adopting the living wage as opposed to the minimum wage would knock 300,000 youngsters out of work.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, it is obviously very important to do everything that we possibly can to help young people into work for the first time or back into work from unemployment.

[Noble Lords]

This side!

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The coalition has already had time; I am sorry.

But what the Minister describes as a scarring effect can affect people at any age if they spend too long outside the workforce and cannot get back into a job. I have asked the Minister questions about this before and he has avoided them. Can he now tell us whether the Government keep evidence of age discrimination being practised against jobseekers? Can he also tell us what the Government do if they come across a prima facie case of age discrimination? Have they ever prosecuted or might they prosecute if a clear case arose?

[Lord Freud]

I have written to the noble Lord on this matter. We have not prosecuted in such a case but if we found something egregious we would consider doing so.

Employment: Universal Jobmatch

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

We have a thorough communication exercise to jobseekers to make sure that they look after their information online, just as anyone else needs to be careful with their information online, and we are currently looking to enhance our service through Universal Jobmatch to make sure that we do not have this kind of problem.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, there is quite a lot of anecdotal evidence, certainly in Lincolnshire and I suspect elsewhere, that it is disproportionately difficult for older people in their 50s and early 60s to get jobs through the jobcentre system. In the event that there is evidence of age discrimination against applicants, it is very unreasonable to expect the applicant, who may be a man or woman without means or with very slender means, to pursue his or her own legal redress. Is it the Government’s policy in such circumstances to pursue the case and if possible to prosecute? Have there been any prosecutions for age discrimination instigated by or supported by the department?

[Lord Freud]

The Government do not support age discrimination of any kind, particularly in looking for jobs and we are vigilant to make sure that people do not experience such discrimination.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben]

I am not sure that I entirely follow the noble Lord’s point, but it is true that the Treasury is keen on hypothecation when it suits it and against it when it does not, and this is one of those occasions. The trouble is that hypothecation ought to be between the payment of the bill and the advantages from the bill, but in this case it is not that, and many of those who have to pay the cost of Section 106 agreements are only just above the level of benefiting from them. It is because this is a fundamental flaw in the whole system that I come to be extremely disappointed in the Growth and Infrastructure Bill. As I have said previously, it is a pretentious title for a series of very small alterations, some of which are not terribly helpful.

However, there is a big alteration that we ought to make if we really want people to have housing, which is to say seriously that the cost should not be a tax on a small number and those who are most vulnerable; the cost should be a tax that we all bear for a proper social end. In case the Opposition say that I am moving in their direction, I say that they are as guilty as anyone else. They have imposed taxes in this area that are just as large and always excuse it as a tax on the developer. The developer does not pay taxes; he charges the cost to the people who buy his houses. That is the nature of the market; there is no way of avoiding it. I am very happy to support the drive of the amendment, which suggests that, if we are going to do this, we may as well make sure that we get bang for our buck by tightening it and toughening it. But, my goodness, what a disappointment it is that yet another Bill comes before this House masquerading behind this fraudulent concept that supported housing should not be supported by the nation as a whole but should be a price borne largely on the shoulders of first-time buyers. It is not right, it should not be and we ought to find a different way of dealing with it.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has taken a broad interpretation of the scope of the amendment. I am glad that he has and the Committee should welcome an opportunity briefly to debate Section 106, because it is an enormously important factor in housing development in this country and the House is unlikely to have another, foreseeable opportunity, either during the passage of this Bill or otherwise, to discuss it.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, argues, and I think that I can follow his argument fairly clearly, that since there is clearly a cost for developers in entering a Section 106 agreement, whether it is to build affordable housing or to meet some other condition that may be imposed by that agreement, that cost must be reflected in the price of the houses that they sell and therefore be borne by those who buy those houses, who happen to be a limited part of the population. I am sure that that is the noble Lord’s argument—I am sure that he will interrupt me if I have got it wrong. He leaves out an important factor in the equation, which is that if there were no Section 106 agreements fewer houses would be built. Affordable houses are built and receive planning consent only because of Section 106 agreements. If more houses are built, there is a greater supply in relation to a given demand, and that will be factor in the equation bringing down the average price of housing, although not necessarily by the same amount as the other factor in the equation brings it up. The noble Lord should take that point into account if he is to try to design a model for how the housing market works.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, set out his amendment with great lucidity and very persuasively—he of course knows a great deal about this subject. I thoroughly agreed both with his analysis of the situation and with his rather ingenious compromise solution, which we may well want to adopt at this particular moment, having got as far as we have. I deeply regret for two reasons that the Government have decided retrospectively to waive Section 106 agreements. First, it will deprive a lot of people of affordable housing. That is a very bad day’s work. It is just the opposite of what we need in the present situation and an extraordinary reflection of the Government’s priorities. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, was concerned also about people who can afford to buy a house which is not designated an affordable house. He might dispense a little bit of his sympathy for those who could not dream of buying a house which was not deliberately built to be an affordable house and was in other words at the bottom end of the market and a good deal cheaper than average houses in this country.

The second reason why I regret what the Government have done is that it seems to falsify to whole system of planning in this country. As I have just explained, many Section 106 agreements result in land being designated for development which otherwise would be not be so designated. The local planning authority, normally the local council, has quite rightly to make a choice, an arbitrage, between considerations, on the one side, as to whether giving planning consent for, let us say, development on green belt areas or areas outside the existing curtilage of towns and villages represents the loss of an environmental amenity, but, against that negative public interest, as to whether there is a positive interest which outweighs that, which in present circumstances is the need for affordable housing. Therefore, the planning authority in the discharge of its responsibilities has quite reasonably weighed those different aspects of local communities’ interest and come out in that particular direction. Now, of course, if the Section 106 obligations are retrospectively withdrawn yet the development goes ahead, it becomes no longer a balance but entirely a one-sided gift to the developer and the community loses both ways. On the one side, it loses through the loss of the land, the loss of the environmental benefit, the loss of the amenity benefit and the visual impact of the development, whatever that may be; on the other, it loses the benefits of affordable housing or the other benefits of the Section 106 agreement which has been entered into. That is a doubly bad deal for the local community.

I dealt with a lot of Section 106 agreements when I was in the other House and on one occasion took the initiative in brokering a major Section 106 agreement between a landlord, a developer, a district council—South Kesteven District Council—and Lincolnshire County Council as the highways authority in order to finance the southern bypass of Grantham. There was no way in the world that the southern bypass was going to get into the then Government’s road programme—it would not have the met COBA thresholds—but it could and was financed in that way. It took a long time and a lot of negotiation, but it was well worth doing. However, it would have been most extraordinary if, retrospectively, we had said to the developer and the landowner, “Well, that’s alright. You can have the planning consent, but you do not need to build a bypass any more”. That is effectively the sort of deal which this Government are now offering developers.

I have to say that not many people are doing very well out of this Government in this country. People on benefit are obviously suffering; the public sector has suffered greatly; the private sector has suffered enormously; and our Armed Forces are suffering. Everybody is suffering except, as far as I can see, two categories of people: those who are lucky enough to be earning more than £150,000 a year, whose tax rate has been reduced from 50% to 45%, and now real-estate developers and speculative builders. I have nothing against real-estate developers and speculative builders—far from it—but it is an extraordinary set of priorities which are reflected in what the Government are doing.

As the Committee knows, I was for a number of years in the Tory party myself—far too many years, I have say; I am very sorry and repent of that particular sin—but, nevertheless, I know a little about how it works. I must say that if you went to Conservative associations up and down the country and did an analysis by sector of the business activities in which donors to local Tory associations are involved, you may well find that that particular section of the market comes out very high. I do not wish to establish a causal link between the two things; I have no evidence to enable me to do that. However, I simply state these two separate facts as an interesting coincidence.

I have considerable distaste for what the Government currently propose, but we need a way out of this situation that makes some sense and makes sure that these developments take place and affordable housing is built. In that spirit, I very much endorse the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, I will be brief. I should like to support my noble friend Lord Best. I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

My noble friend set out a good case for the amendment and I hope that even if the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is unable to accept it today she will at least take on the general thrust of his arguments, not just for this amendment but also for those that he said are in later groupings. I believe that he was trying to help the Committee by discussing some of those at this time in order to save time later on.

I was also taken by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who said that it is really everyone’s desire to see the spades in the ground and housing being built. I was struck by a report in the Times today about how over the next four years many people in poorer categories will see their homes defaulted on because of their inability to pay interest-only mortgages. Therefore, this already difficult situation, with homeless people in this country and people unable to get on the home ownership ladder, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said a few moments ago, means that we have to do all that we can to try to find space for affordable housing. We must ensure that those who are in homes at the moment will not have to renege on their mortgages and become part of an issue that then has to be faced by local authorities because they are under other obligations to find them temporary accommodation.

I think back to my own time as chairman of a housing committee in Liverpool 30 years ago when we had vast amounts of derelict land and no money at all to build large amounts of new municipal housing even if we had wanted to. We came up with an innovative scheme at the time which met some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, addressed in his remarks. By retaining the ownership of the site—the land—in the hands of the local authority, we were able to pioneer the building of low-cost homes for sale in inner-city Liverpool—the first that had been built there in virtually a hundred years. Perhaps more importantly, we gave first priority for those homes to people who were already in existing council properties. This meant that, at the same time as encouraging people into home ownership, we freed up their accommodation—at no cost to the public purse—for people on the housing waiting list. Perhaps, therefore, we should look at something along those lines for first-time buyers and for existing council tenants, who would be able to free up their properties and therefore not only stimulate the building of new affordable housing but also create rented accommodation for people currently on waiting lists.

The other point I would like to make to the Minister concerns the issue of integration. I agree with what my noble friend said about how, particularly in rural areas, it has been very good to have a mixture of social housing alongside quite expensive housing. This has enabled people to stay in communities from which they would otherwise be driven. I think that many noble Lords from all sides of your Lordships’ House will have seen how, in rural areas especially, people have been driven away because they simply cannot afford the cost of homes, which are often taken up as second homes by people who live in cities or urban areas. Our first priority should be to allow those people to stay in, and contribute to, their own communities. Similarly, in urban areas, having a mixture of rented and owner-occupied property ensures that we do not create the municipal Bantustans that stretch facelessly and often aimlessly from the railway lines to the cemetery, and which in the past have caused so many of the social problems that we have to deal with today.