Housing Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Wednesday 27th October 2010

(14 years, 1 month ago)

Ministerial Corrections
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
The following is the answer given by the Minister for Housing and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), relating to questions from the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and the hon. Members for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) and for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) during Communities and Local Government Question Time on 21 October 2010.
Grant Shapps Portrait Grant Shapps
- Hansard - -

Absolutely. Until now there has been only one way to get into social housing, and for most people that way has not led to their getting a social home. That is why housing waiting lists doubled under the last Government from 1 million to nearly 2 million. There was only a single offer, and not enough homes were being built. We have introduced affordable rent, which means that rents can be up to 80% of the market rent. That is a more viable option, and it means that less money can produce more homes and that new investment will go into providing homes for the most needy in society, who were so badly let down by a Government who produced only a 14,000 net gain in affordable homes during a 13-year period in office.

[Official Report, 21 October 2010, Vol. 516, c. 1113.]

Letter of correction from Grant Shapps:

An error has been identified in the oral answer given on 21 October 2010.

The correct answer should have been:

Grant Shapps Portrait Grant Shapps
- Hansard - -

Absolutely. Until now there has been only one way to get into social housing, and for most people that way has not led to their getting a social home. That is why housing waiting lists doubled under the last Government from 1 million to nearly 2 million. There was only a single offer, and not enough homes were being built. We have introduced affordable rent, which means that rents can be up to 80% of the market rent. That is a more viable option, and it means that less money can produce more homes and that new investment will go into providing homes for the most needy in society, who were so badly let down by a Government who produced only a 40,000 net loss in affordable homes during a 13-year period in office.