communities and local government committee
Debate between Bob Russell and Clive Betts
Mr Betts
I would certainly be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman when I have had a chance to read his Bill, which is on my Christmas reading list and seems to address exactly the sorts of issues the Committee considered. I emphasise that this is a Committee report. The whole of the Committee worked extremely hard and went on the visits, and we agreed the recommendations unanimously.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman comment on one unintended consequence and offer advice on it? One local authority in my part of Essex has decided to plonk several thousand houses on the extremities of its district, miles away from its major centres of population but right on the doorstep of urban Colchester. Is there not a flaw in the NPPF if that sort of situation is being allowed to happen?
Mr Betts
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that I cannot comment on or have knowledge of every particular planning development throughout the country. Clearly, there are issues of contention where housing need in one area has to be met by putting housing in another area. The duty to co-operate, which should resolve that, has not been working in all circumstances. We went to Gloucestershire and found three councils working very well together, but even they said that they did not always have terribly good relationships with the councils next door that were not part of their process. A look needs to be taken at the whole issue of co-operation and how it can be improved.
Housing Benefit
Debate between Bob Russell and Clive Betts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
The debate so far has made only fleeting reference to child poverty. The previous Government left 3.9 million children living below the official poverty line, so we need to think long and hard about whether this Government’s measures are going to make that figure worse.
According to Shelter, the average loss per family in my constituency will be about £9 a week. For a low-income family, that £9 now has to compete; if the rent is not paid, and a family lose their home, they are, in law, deemed to be intentionally homeless. Whatever faults there are in this country, one thing is for sure: the children of this country are not responsible. They must not be allowed to lose their homes. For that family in my constituency, having to find another £9 a week for rent means £9 a week less on food, clothing, shoes and utility bills. We know that fuel poverty has an adverse impact on low-income families. Others have mentioned pensioners and their points have been well made, but I am going to concentrate on the families.
The loss of £9 from such a family’s disposable income will mean that the local economy will lose out. That could affect what else is going on. Incidentally, I have come up with a novel saving for middle-England households. It is not compulsory to buy the Daily Mail or The Mail on Sunday, and not buying them will produce a saving of about £500 a year to a middle-England household. I recommend it.
The Local Government Association has kindly provided the following suggestion:
“a full and robust new burdens assessment should be made of the extra local authority costs that will be incurred as a result of these changes. This should not just include the expected homelessness costs, but also community safety, physical and mental health, social care, child protection and other services.
The wider impact of these costs should not be underestimated and will result in increased costs for councils.”
The LGA has suggested that local authorities should have more flexible powers, so that they can work with local landlords to negotiate rents downwards. That would fit in with the Secretary of State’s view that the object of the exercise is not to penalise families, but to force rents down. In a spirit of collaboration, coalition and fairness, I think that the Government should take equal measures—put a cap on the rent as well as on the housing benefit.
The problem is that we have had 30 years of successive Government failures to provide sufficient housing for rent. The last Government were as guilty as the previous Conservative Government, building fewer than 7,000 council houses in 13 years; even the dastardly Thatcher Government managed to build more than half a million. Indeed, the last Labour Government sold half a million council dwellings. I intervened earlier on the question of supply and demand because of the simple fact that for 30 years supply has not matched demand.
Mr Betts
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to increasing the number of social houses built, but does he accept that under the comprehensive spending review the expenditure plans for new social homes have been cut in half? The only such homes that will be built on the current tenures and rents will be those to which the previous Government committed? All new homes built after that will cost 80% of market rents, and that building will be paid for by increasing the rents on re-let tenancies to that level as well, so this Government are committing to no new social housing at all.
Bob Russell
I was praying for an Opposition intervention because it gives me an opportunity to pick up and wave these pages containing the more than 50 questions on council housing that I have put in the last decade, including to former Prime Minister Blair, his successor and former Deputy Prime Minister Prescott, all of whom failed the Labour party. We should contrast what the last Labour Government did with what the real Labour Government of 1945 led by Clement Attlee did in the aftermath of the war.