(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberI am here today to talk about housing provision in England and if the hon. Gentleman wants to compare the Labour record with the Conservative record, I will take any time our record over 13 years in government—
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? I can help him out on this.
Will the hon. Gentleman bear with me? That is help from an unusual quarter.
The record is 2 million more homes, 500,000 of them affordable. I watched with interest the contribution of the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) to Channel 4 News last night, and I would just say to him on social homes—council houses and housing association social homes—that the Labour Government built more social homes in their last three years, which were the most difficult because of the recession, than this Government have managed to build in their first three years in office.
I know the right hon. Gentleman does not really want to talk about the devolved Governments Labour has run, but does he know how many houses Labour built in the last four years in government in Scotland? Obviously, it is a difficult question, but the answer is six: six houses, and none of them were on the Scottish mainland. Shetland was lucky enough to get six houses from the Labour Executive.
In Scotland and elsewhere local authorities have responsibility for building houses, but we are here to hold this Government to account, and homelessness—
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberIn preparing for the debate this evening, I, too, asked myself that, and I struggled to think of another example of when the House had so little time to consider something so profound.
Nobody can be under any misapprehension about the scale of the change that is being proposed. Lord Browne said:
“What we recommend is a radical departure from the existing way in which HEIs”—
higher education institutions—
“are financed…Our recommendations will lead to a significant change”.
The plain truth is that the Browne report, which is radical and significant in its implications, has not even been debated in the House yet. Since the report was published, on 12 October 2010, there has been one urgent question, when the Secretary of State was forced to come to the House and explain what was going on, and one ministerial statement, on 3 November. However, there has been no debate at all on the Browne report in Government time—none.
I think I was in the process of giving way to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart).
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can take this opportunity to remind the House how many hours the Labour party made available to debate tuition fees on the Floor of the House when the previous Government attempted to hike them up.
I will gladly do that. If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I shall come to that point in a moment.
The right hon. Gentleman has now been speaking for an hour and a half. Does he feel like stopping? As we have only five and a half hours tomorrow, will he promise not to make another speech like this one?
That is a trifle ungenerous, because I am trying to assist the House so that it will have enough time tomorrow to debate this.
Paragraph 8.1 of the explanatory memorandum on the consultation outcome is germane, because it states:
“These Regulations are informed by Lord Browne’s review which took evidence from students, teachers, academics, employers and regulators over a period of almost a year. The need to provide clarity for students and universities about the contributions they can expect to make and receive means that the timetable for laying the Regulations has been highly compressed, and this has prevented a separate external consultation exercise on the Government’s proposals.”
Highly compressed? It is more like “cut and run”, because that is what we are dealing with tonight.