Housing Benefit

Debate between Lord Lilley and Sheila Gilmore

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lilley]

I will give way not at the moment.

The problem that we face is a huge shortage of housing. We have 1.85 million people on council waiting lists, up 800,000 since 1997. That should be no surprise, given that the previous Government allowed the population to increase by 3 million during that period, with virtually no addition to the housing stock.

The symptom of such a shortage is overcrowding—a word which did not pass the lips of the Opposition spokesman in her speech. During my period as a Member of Parliament, many people have come to my surgery to seek help about a change in social housing. Overwhelmingly, they have been people living in overcrowded accommodation who want a bigger property and seek to move out of a one or two-bedroom property. I have therefore been surprised by the general approach of Opposition Members and by some of the media in saying that no one wants to move out of small properties into big ones and that there are therefore no small properties to be moved into by those affected by the removal of the spare room subsidy.

By chance, I bumped into an old friend who is now the chairman of an organisation called HomeSwapper. Some 80% of local authorities belong to it, and hundreds of thousands of tenants have registered on it that they want to swap.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the problem with his presentation is that the Government expect to make a fairly substantial saving of some £500,000—they will not actually make it—from people not being able to move. What is the real aim of the policy: is it about people moving, or about trying to extract money from them?

[Mr Lilley]

The policy is about making better use of a housing stock that is in very short supply.

My friend pointed out that hundreds of thousands of people are registered: last year, about 40,000 swaps were arranged; this year, the number arranged on the site has increased by 23%. I went to my local authority to find out its figures. Some 500 or more people registered as council tenants in St Albans are seeking to move, of whom 260 are seeking larger properties, while only 62 are seeking to downsize. I therefore ask Opposition Members to go to their local authorities and find out the actual figures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

There is a fundamental incoherence at the heart of this whole policy. We have heard impassioned pleas from some members on the Government Benches about how much they care for people in overcrowded housing and that this is a policy to help with that situation, but at the same time it is clear from the Government’s own financial projections that they expected to make savings from people not being able to move and having to pay the extra. That is the fundamental inconsistency. The savings are going to be outweighed not just by discretionary housing payments but by the cost of administering them, of giving people additional advice and support and of employing more staff to do so. All that is being shouldered by local authorities and housing associations, and it has to be taken into account when looking at overall public spending.

DHPs do not make up for the fact that many people are suffering. These are real people. A constituent of mine was a cancer sufferer; he is in recovery. He has three children whom he wants to have with him at weekends. One is autistic—where is he supposed to put that child in a one-bedroom property? Is he not allowed to have a life? He did not qualify for DHPs first time around because his DLA was taken into account, so it is not a straightforward case of saying “People will be all right, even those who are disabled.” Why should people be made to make repeated applications instead of being exempted? The Prime Minister at times seems to think that those people are already exempted, but he is clearly wrong.

I am sorry to tell the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) that many of us are deeply concerned about housing in our areas. New houses have been built in my city, but this week only 23 one-bedroom properties are available, of which five are sheltered accommodation. They are not suitable for people in this position. The houses just are not there at the moment, so why should people pay a tax, which is what it is, until that is sorted out?

[Mr Lilley]

Will the hon. Lady clarify—

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Debate between Lord Lilley and Sheila Gilmore

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

I welcome the recall of Parliament. I am only sorry that we are not being recalled to discuss the problems of the eurozone, the slowdown in the world economy in the face of higher energy prices, and the famine in east Africa. We may well have to be recalled in August to discuss the first of these issues.

We are here today to discuss, among other things, the relationships between politicians and the media. It behoves us all, therefore, to declare any connections with the media in general and News International in particular. I was going to say that I had none, but my wife reminded me that in 1997 The Times supported my bid for the leadership of the Conservative party. In view of the fact that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague) discovered and the Leader of the Opposition will discover, becoming Leader of the Opposition after 12 years in power is a poisoned chalice, it might be thought that endorsing me was more a malicious act than a reason for me to feel any obligation. Anyway, The Times subsequently precipitated my departure from the Front Bench by publishing no fewer than 16 hostile articles critical of my Butler memorial lecture—the first time it had ever received such attention in The Times. I think therefore that my slate is clean as far as Murdoch is concerned, which is just as well because I might say some things that are mildly favourable to News International.

There has been great outrage in this country over the hacking scandal and Milly Dowler, but I am worried that it is being used by some people who want to shackle the freedom of the press, which would put not only our freedom in danger but a major industry and employer in this country at risk. Politicians tend to suffer from the delusion that the press and the media have far more power than they do—the power to swing votes. In fact, readers do not take instructions from editors. When The Sun had been backing the Tories for a decade and claimed, “It’s the Sun wot won it”, a survey found that a majority of readers of The Sun thought that it was a Labour-supporting newspaper. Readers who are interested in politics choose their newspaper because it has congenial political views; the rest are largely uninfluenced by an editor’s views. Successful editors follow their readers, not vice versa.

None the less, we in the House tend to be subject to this delusion, and none more so than those on the left of politics. The reason is that the left needs an explanation for why the majority of ordinary people do not share its views on the EU, crime, family, welfare and taxes. Those on the left conclude, as they have to, that people must have been indoctrinated, and clearly the indoctrinator-in-chief is Rupert Murdoch and News International. I have looked through the literally hundreds of e-mails that I have received on this issue. Only one mentioned Milly Dowler; one other expressed outrage about hacking. All the others were about Rupert Murdoch, News International and even Fox News, which does not even operate over here, and about its size, its share of the market, its views and its foreign ownership. These are legitimate concerns, but they are partisan.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have received numerous representations this year on the BSkyB takeover. As a councillor, I was always advised that in matters that might involve a conflict of interest, perception was everything. Does he agree that it would have been better had the Government from the outset—at the end of last year—referred the bid to the Competition Commission, and not got involved with undertakings from an organisation that had already proven itself to be untrustworthy on undertakings? That would have improved the public’s perception of the Government.

[Mr Lilley]

I do not believe that perception is all; substance is the most important thing, along with following the law, which is what I believe the Government did.

Labour Members have expressed no concern today about the media share held by the BBC, about the behaviour of The Mirror, which was often implicated by Nick Davies in his investigation, or about the ownership of the Standard or The Independent. I think that we need to recognise that the press does not have the power that people suppose. It does not swing votes—perhaps a few—and it does not determine popular views but follows them. The one important power that the press has is the power to tell the truth. All credit should go to Nick Davies of The Guardian for his investigations, both on this particular issue and more widely. Sadly, his searing critique of the media, “Flat Earth News”, received remarkably little coverage from his colleagues in the media and appallingly little interest from the political class in the House. At its launch in this House, I was one of only two Members of the House of Commons who attended to hear his views. But we should listen, because he says that there is wrongdoing in many organs of the press other than News International.

Having listened, we should be extremely wary of believing that the solution is to burden the media with more regulation and with statutory controls. Hacking is already illegal—we do not have to pass laws to make it illegal. However, such things as intrusion on personal grief, though repugnant, are not justiciable. Bias and distortion are regrettable, but they are not really justiciable unless we are to set up censorship of the press. We should be very wary of going down that road, and we should not get carried away or allow partisan concern about the views expressed by one player in the media to be used in the political process to damage that player or the freedom of the press.