Housing (CSR)

Nick Raynsford Excerpts

Wednesday 27th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

In answer to a request from the Minister, it would be perfectly in order for gentlemen to remove their jackets. I was told to put you in order in relation to that, Mr Betts.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

I am pleased that we are meeting under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Gray. At the outset, I wish to draw attention to my interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am grateful to have this opportunity to raise an issue of huge importance and very real concern to our constituents and the whole country: the impact of Government policy and the comprehensive spending review on housing investment and supply.

I have been closely involved with housing for almost all my working life, during which I have seen a number of ups and downs. However, at no time during the past four decades can I recall there being a bleaker outlook for people looking for a new home or a solution to their housing problems. As MPs, all of us know from our constituency surgeries and our wider contacts in our communities how many people face housing difficulties, whether that expresses itself in the despair felt by many prospective home buyers who cannot find a home at prices they can afford or in relation to those people who think they have found a home at a price they can afford only to have their hopes dashed when they cannot obtain mortgage finance. Such despair might also be reflected in the anxiety of tenants and home owners, who fear that they will no longer be able to afford to stay in their home against a background of rising unemployment and harsh cuts in housing benefit. Alternatively, there is the desperation felt by families living in overcrowded or squalid conditions who have an urgent need for a move but see no prospect of getting an offer of a social tenancy and are nervous about whether they can afford the cost of a private one.

All those and many other problems are familiar to us, but what is particularly alarming is the prospect—I fear it is a very real prospect—of things getting much worse in the months and years ahead as a consequence of the coalition Government’s policies and the comprehensive spending review. We have just come through the most serious recession of my lifetime, and housing was inevitably badly affected. Private house building in England fell from just over 150,000 new starts in 2007 to just 60,000 in 2009. That clearly has had a serious impact on the situation, but things would have been far worse if the then Labour Government had not taken a series of bold measures to counter the downturn.

As a result of the fiscal stimulus and more specific policies targeted at the housing market, repossessions, which had been forecast to rise to similar levels to those seen in the recession of the early ’90s, peaked at around half that level. Investment was made through the Homes and Communities Agency in schemes such as Kickstart, the national affordable housing programme, and HomeBuy Direct, which meant that social and affordable housing programmes were maintained and confidence began to return to the market.

In the early months of this year, house builders were reporting month-on-month improvements in house sales and in the output of new homes; it appeared that we had turned the corner. Then came the general election and the formation of the coalition Government. Since then, a series of ill-considered, unco-ordinated, untested and, frankly, irresponsible policy initiatives and cuts have destroyed the prospect of recovery, brought the housing market to the verge of a double-dip recession and spread alarm and concern around almost every sector of the community that is in need of better housing.

Two weeks ago in this Chamber, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) highlighted the disastrous consequences of the housing benefit cuts announced in the June Budget. As we had a full debate on that subject then, I will not go over the same ground again. However, I will reiterate her words on the spectre of rising homelessness, indebtedness, insecurity and forced migration, all of which have been prompted by the coalition Government’s policies. Of course, since then, the already bleak prospect has been compounded by the announcement of further benefit cuts and caps in the spending review. It is hardly surprising that fears for the future viability of the private rented market are being voiced by landlords and tenant representatives alike. The situation would be bad enough if that was the only policy change emanating from the Government, but there have been many more.

Confidence in the private house building industry has been severely damaged over the past five months by ill-thought-out changes to the planning regime, a continuing mortgage famine, fears about rising unemployment and severe cuts to the Homes and Communities Agency budget, which had been supporting many new housing and regeneration schemes. Last week, on 20 October, The Times reported that Bellway—Britain’s sixth largest house builder—had

“delivered what one analyst described as an ‘unremittingly bleak’ assessment of the housing market. The Newcastle-based company said that while it had enjoyed a strong spring selling season, consumer confidence had ‘slowly ebbed away’ after the general election and subsequent media discussion of how the Government planned to tackle Britain’s budget deficit.”

The Daily Telegraph reported last week on 22 October that the Bank of England is warning that home prices are likely to remain static or decline in 2011, as home loans become harder to secure after the spending cuts. The article goes on to state:

“The warning will add to growing fears about the fragility of the housing market after values dropped last month by the biggest monthly amount ever recorded.”

The Guardian also reported last week on 22 October that:

“Britain’s struggling housebuilding industry is ‘bewildered’ by government plans to radically change the financing of new council houses as experts warn the measures could have a ‘devastating impact’ on the future supply of social housing.”

[Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I have some sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Clearly confidence is fragile, but that is partly because there has been a reality check since the election and the Government have been upfront with the public about the need for austerity. However, I share—I hope that he does, too—the positivity that lies behind the very determined strategy for growth that the Prime Minister has been articulating in the aftermath of the comprehensive spending review. His comments and that strategy will help to restore confidence. The austerity message is important given the fact we were living far beyond our means.

[Mr Raynsford]

I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman, whom I know well and for whom I have a lot of respect. The truth is that the economy was recovering during the early months of this year, as the figures show. I am not giving my own opinion; I am talking about the opinion of experienced business people, house builders, lenders and analysts who all say exactly the same thing: the housing market was recovering and there was the prospect of growth. In the past five months, that has been taken away by a series of measures—Budget measures introduced by the Government, changes in planning policy and changes affecting institutions that have been summarily abolished. A series of ad hoc, poorly co-ordinated and ill-thought-out proposals have damaged confidence in the market. Any person who is seriously worried about housing should feel very alarmed about that.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this vital debate; he is speaking with his customary expertise on this very important subject. Further to the comments of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field), is it not the case that there has been a conjunction in the restriction of supply—for all the reasons my right hon. Friend has set out—and vicious cuts in the ability of the poorest people to meet the costs of the supply that is available? The consequence of those two factors has been to carry out a vicious attack, particularly on the housing needs of the poorest in our community. Once what is happening gets across to the wider public, it will cause outrage.

[Mr Raynsford]

My right hon. Friend, who has great experience in both the financial field and housing, makes an extremely telling point. I have a huge amount of sympathy for what he is saying. From what I will say later, he will hear that I agree wholeheartedly that the impact of the measures announced by the new Government will disproportionately affect poorer people.

After Ministers have been confronted with such dire evidence of the negative impact that their policies have had over the past six months, one might expect that they would be reconsidering some of their impetuous early decisions and the harsh cuts package. One certainly might expect a Liberal Democrat Minister to wonder why he and his colleagues have lashed themselves to the mast of a Tory ship heading directly on to the rocks, steered by a demented helmsman, while the captain appears blithely unaware of the immediate perils, fixing his gaze instead on some distant coastline and imaginary sunlit uplands and—to use the words of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster—prattling on about growth tomorrow, unaware that the reality is one of cuts and unemployment coming today.

Instead of changing course, Ministers continue to press ahead on their doomed journey, ignoring all the evidence of impending disaster and pinning their hopes on the so-called housing bonus incentive, which is about as unconvincing as the imagined sunlit uplands. The scheme has been promised as the panacea for the housing market for the past six months. In the summer, the Minister for Housing and Local Government promised anxious house builders that it would be launched before the summer recess. We were then told that all would be revealed in the autumn. Now we are promised a consultation in November. All the while, confidence is draining away from the housing market.

Perhaps the Minister can reveal today how that supposed panacea will work. Will it, as the Housing Minister originally claimed, apply to all new homes? That was the prospectus. I now gather that it is more likely that it will apply only to net additions to the housing stock. If that is the case—I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that—what will that do to regeneration? What will it do to areas where there is a need to develop brownfield sites and clear properties or to improve older, substandard ones as part of that process? In such areas, it will probably be years before there is any net addition to the housing stock. What possible benefit will there be in such areas from a bonus scheme that is based solely on net additions to the stock?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)]

It might shorten the right hon. Gentleman’s speech a little if I say that it is a new homes bonus.

[Mr Raynsford]

That is as clear as mud. Is it additional new homes, or new homes? The original prospectus specified all new dwellings.

[Andrew Stunell]

The right hon. Gentleman obviously was not listening. I did not use the term, “additional new homes”; it is a new homes bonus. He should trust the words of the Housing Minister.

[Mr Raynsford]

If that is the case, I am pleased to hear it, but there has been much speculation in the housing press, based on the Housing Minister’s remarks at the Conservative party conference—not an occasion that I attended—indicating that it would apply to net additions to the housing stock. There is an obvious concern, and I hope that we will have greater clarity than we have so far received on the subject.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

There is a further problem with that bonus idea. We have all been present at planning meetings at which those who are opposed to new housing developments say that they are being built for the money. Chairs of planning have been able to stand back and say, “No, the planning issues are being judged on their merits.” Will not they now have to put their hands up and say, “Yes, we are doing it for the money.”?

[Mr Raynsford]

My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. People who are opposed to housing developments will inevitably see a council’s decision to grant consent as tainted if it is to receive a financial sum as a result of doing so. That will always be a problem with such a scheme, and I highlighted the difficulties that it would create almost a year ago when I spoke with the Housing Minister, who was then the Opposition spokesman.

There are many other areas of uncertainty. How many homes will the scheme generate? We have been given some pretty flamboyant promises by the Housing Minister, but how will the Government’s estimates for the number of new homes generated compare with the 160,000 homes for which plans have already been ditched since the general election, primarily because of changes in planning rules? Tetlow King Planning has estimated in a report for the National Housing Federation that a further 120,000 to 140,000 planned homes could be lost in the coming year.

What will be the impact of cuts to funding schemes for local authorities? Which authorities will gain and which will lose? How will the bonus be split between district councils and county councils, bearing in mind that the former have to give planning consent, but that the later have to meet most consequential infrastructure costs? I hope that the Minister can give us more detailed answers to those questions, but I fear that we may have to wait rather longer, as we have waited in vain for the emergence of detail on the scheme for the past five months.

One question that I hope the Minister will answer is this: given all the questions and doubts that have been raised in so many quarters, including by those who have a real understanding and professional involvement in the field, why has the scheme not been piloted to test whether there is a realistic prospect that it will deliver the benefits that the Housing Minister constantly assures us it will bring? How can the Government claim to believe in evidence-based policy making, when they have not a shred of empirical evidence to support the case for the housing bonus incentive?

As if the damage caused by the harsh housing benefit cuts and their maladroit destabilising of the housing market was not enough, the Government have also embarked, in clear breach of Conservative election pledges, on a dismantling of the whole basis of social housing in England. Why Liberal Democrat Ministers and Members are choosing to go along with those disastrous policies is a mystery. Perhaps the Minister can give an explanation. Enjoying security in one’s own home is an asset that almost all hon. Members take for granted, as do the great majority of the population. The old adage that an Englishman’s home is his castle reflects a deep-seated belief that a secure home is a bedrock of a decent society.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a growing body of research demonstrates the negative impact upon children’s well-being of high enforced mobility? The savings gained as a result of some of those measures and the removal of security of tenure will be more than offset by the damage done to children’s health, emotional well-being and educational achievement.

[Mr Raynsford]

My hon. Friend speaks with considerable knowledge and experience of the subject, and I wholly endorse what she said. That is an area where there is great cause for concern. It is rather depressing that it is coming from a Minister whose language reveals the rather cavalier approach that he is adopting towards his policies.

In March this year, in the run-up to the general election, the current Housing Minister said:

“Conservatives will ensure that living in social accommodation means that you’ll get a ‘freedom pass’ to get on and do more with your life.”

That is the first time that I have heard a notice to quit described as a freedom pass. That is an indication of the Orwellian language that the Government are using to justify some of their wholly unacceptable policies.

All of us recognise that security is so important for people’s life prospects, so why should the coalition Government, without any manifesto commitment or reference in the coalition agreement, move to take away that precious security from a group of our fellow citizens who arguably need it more than anyone? The only credible argument advanced by those who advocate the policy is that it will free up social housing, making more homes available to those in need, but any serious analysis of the Government’s proposals shows clearly that it will not have that effect—on the contrary, it will discourage mobility—and that, even if it did have the intended effect, it would have disastrous social consequences.

Let us take those arguments in turn. If existing tenants are not to lose their security, and if new lettings are to be made on a new basis without the traditional security and at 80% of market rents, existing tenants who might have considered moving to a smaller home, so releasing larger accommodation for those in need, will obviously have second thoughts if the result will be a loss of security and a rent increase. The policy would have the opposite effect of that intended. If, however, to counter that perverse incentive to remain in an under-occupied home, tenants are allowed to keep their security when moving and not have a rent increase, there will be grotesque anomalies. Wholly different rents and tenancy terms will be perpetuated solely on the arbitrary criterion of whether the tenancy is offered to a transferring tenant or a new applicant.

Worse still will be the consequences of using the new insecure tenancies to require tenants to move on if their income increases or if they are judged to have enjoyed sufficient time in social housing. What chance is there of creating mixed and balanced communities, rather than ghettos of deprivation, if anyone who gets on is told to leave? If only the poor and the unemployed can occupy social housing, that is a recipe for residualisation and a total disincentive to aspiration.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend has come to the nub of the issue, which is that this is not about creating balanced communities but about social engineering. On new build housing, I use the example of my local authority, Hammersmith and Fulham, which is aiming for 40% affordable housing over the next 10 years. All those units will be intermediate housing, which is for people on incomes between £20,000 and £80,000 a year, yet 40% of households in the borough are on incomes below £20,000. The people most in housing need will not be provided with housing.

[Mr Raynsford]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point and shows the linkage between the policies on housing benefit, which will put enormous pressure on people on lower incomes to move out of high-cost areas, and the impact of the changed social housing policy that the new Government are introducing, which will have exactly the same effect.

I can match my hon. Friend’s observation by referring to the experience in my constituency. In the SE10 postal district, which is at the heart of the Greenwich and Woolwich constituency, average market rents are estimated at £380 a week and 80% of them would involve a rent of more than £300 a week for a supposed social letting. No one in low-paid work would consider such a tenancy unless they were to have most of the costs covered by housing benefit. Of course, if that were the case, there would be a huge surge in the cost of housing benefit, which hardly tallies with the coalition Government’s current objectives, nor the caps that they are applying.

Indeed, if people did move in on the basis that they would get most of their costs met by housing benefit, the double whammy from some sanctimonious Minister would be a call for further housing benefit cuts or caps on the grounds that people on benefit should not be able to live in such expensive areas. So who will occupy any homes that are built on that basis? Some may go, perfectly properly, to people in what is often described as the intermediate market. One of the more encouraging trends in recent years has been the development of mixed-tenure communities with opportunities for people to occupy housing on a range of different terms: social renting, intermediate renting, market renting, low-cost home ownership and outright ownership.

The whole point of such diversity is to provide for a range of needs and for people in different economic circumstances. It makes a lot of sense to provide intermediate renting solutions as part of mixed developments. However, it makes no sense to substitute intermediate renting for the social renting options that are available to those on low incomes. If in Greenwich, where social rents for council and housing association tenancies are currently in the range of £80 to £110 a week, all new lettings involved a substitution with lettings at 80% of market rents, the poor would lose out, and, even so, the scheme would probably fail because low-cost home ownership would provide a more attractive proposition to those who can afford a rent in excess of £300 a week.

Once again, we see a policy that has all the hallmarks of being made on the hoof. There is no serious analysis of its likely consequences, let alone empirical tests or pilots to see whether it works. It carries all the marks of the coalition Government proposing far-reaching and fundamental changes to institutions and policies that have potentially devastating consequences, with no supporting evidence base.

In their five months in office, the coalition Government have already had a disastrous impact on housing in this country. The recovery from recession has been stalled, house building is in crisis, social housing is facing a death warrant, private renting is being undermined by housing benefit cuts and hundreds of thousands of tenants are fearful about whether they can continue to afford their rent and many more are under the threat of having to move or facing the bleak prospect of homelessness. It is difficult to think of a more inept and deplorable record in such a short period of time. One can only hope that Ministers will come to their senses and recognise that this is no way to run housing policy. Our country and our people deserve better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford). As he rightly says, we have not so much crossed swords as spoken on many occasions on various Bill Committees and in Westminster Hall. Like him, the issue of social housing lies close to my heart. On one level, I was disappointed to see that the capital grant funding has been halved, although I entirely understand the reasons behind the Government’s decision given the deficit that we face—I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman will not follow me on that.

I am delighted at the introduction of further rent flexibility to generate a greater borrowing capacity. I take on board the point raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and I hope that the Minister will indicate whether the powers are mandatory or, as I suspect, part of the panoply of options open to housing associations.

In January 2009, I initiated a debate in Westminster Hall that highlighted the need for social landlords to be allowed to use their stock more flexibly. At the time, I argued that the current economic climate—which I suspect has not changed much over the past two years—provided us with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a more flexible rental market. I advised:

“Housing associations are often frustrated that the income they receive from renting a property barely covers maintenance costs and that the rental income from a four-bedroom house is only slightly more than that from a two-bedroom flat… A relaxation in rent policy will increase incentives to build to higher standards and reflect the relative value of a social tenancy.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) referred to that point in his comments.

“Rent differentiation would also provide an incentive for a couple to downsize when they no longer need to stay in a large property when their children are grown up. That would hopefully free-up valuable family-size accommodation to address the problems of overcrowding.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 76WH.]

Such problems of overcrowding are particularly acute in the middle of cities such as London.

I went on to use the example of the housing arrangements of one of my constituents who had recently passed away. She lived as a secure tenant on the Peabody Wild Street estate, at a rate of £75.50 a week, which included services. That estate is moments away from Covent Garden piazza, and the market rent for such a flat would be around £320 a week, probably more by now. When she passed away, the flat was re-let at £116 a week to a tenant with support needs. The difference between the social and market rent was £200 a week, or £10,000 a year. That situation has been worsening over the past couple of years.

With the neediest households receiving priority for housing in my constituency and many other constituencies in the capital, my worry is that such places have become home almost exclusively to either the super-rich or the very poor. That polarisation is not a healthy state of affairs. I do not want to be too London-based; I am sure that the same point applies in Sheffield and many other big cities. All hon. Members will have constituents who earn multiples of the average national wage, who cannot get on the property ladder or afford inner-city rents, but who are regarded as far too wealthy to qualify for social housing. The gap between social and market rents and the inflexibility of the social rent structure has meant that the cost of renting in London remains a significant issue.

I accept that some of the Government’s policies are still in gestation. One hopes that they will take on board some of the concerns reiterated over the years by myself and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. Too often in these debates we end up talking about the interests of existing tenants who are understandably anxious about the idea of their situation changing. In doing so, however, we ignore those less vocal people who make huge sacrifices of time and money to commute to their jobs in the inner cities, or those whose families have been in a local area for generations, but who are forced to move away because of the unaffordability of city centres, particularly in London. It is right to identify the interests of those who will be affected by the new policy, but we should not forget those who have suffered under the existing regime.

The polarisation of our inner cities is a direct result of decades of well-meaning Government intervention from parties on both sides. If some of the Government’s proposals make it easier for young, hard-working people on middle incomes to afford to live in the centre of London, that is a good thing. This week, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) warned that the Government’s policy will create middle-class ghettos in our inner cities. In truth, the young middle classes have been virtually excluded from my constituency over the past decade. We have the absurd situation where the taxpayer massively subsidises the unemployed to live in the centre of London, while working people pay extortionate amounts to commute to their jobs because they find rent levels unaffordable in the centre of town.

Some of the G15 housing associations have come up with a number of new schemes. I hope that some of that innovation will allow young people and young families, who are particularly important, to live at affordable rents while being able to save so as to move to another property or perhaps to buy a share in one in the future.

However, I also accept that the speed at which the cap is being put in place perhaps ignores some of the logistical problems for local authorities—huge logistical problems for some local authorities—in arranging new accommodation, but also coping with a sudden influx of new claimants. About 80% of the people living on housing benefit in my constituency receive a sum in excess of the housing benefit cap. I suspect that that is relatively unusual, but we are still talking about relatively high percentages even in other parts of the capital. For those individuals, this is an incredibly unsettling time. For the areas to which they will move, there will be huge social upheaval, which will affect health services and education as well as, obviously, the basic housing in the locality.

It is likely that, given the option of being able to rent out central London properties at 80% of the market value, social landlords will, to a large extent, choose to do so. At one level, that is no bad thing, because it will allow them to invest in new stock and improve the derisory levels of house building seen in recent years, but equally, as a number of hon. Members pointed out, some unintended consequences may come into play.

[Mr Raynsford]

I will not detain hon. Members, because others want to speak, but will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he agrees with my view that it is right to encourage tenure diversity, as I said in my speech, but it is wrong to substitute the new near market rent tenancies for social tenancies at low rents, because then the poor will be excluded?

[Mr Field]

I think that there is a real risk of that. We want diversity; we want diversity of communities. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the issues will have to be properly identified and nailed down before we move forth.

I appreciate that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall just make two quick observations. With regard to provision of housing by my own local authority, Westminster city council remains confident that local authorities can deliver more affordable housing, even in a period of economic austerity, provided that they are able to think and act creatively. For too long, as we know, local authorities have over-relied on section 106 agreements and registered social landlords to deliver social housing. In that respect, the establishment of the Westminster Community Homes charity locally and its development arm, Westminster Homes Development, will be critical.

My other observation, which slightly concerns me, is that a number of local authorities look on the revolution that is about to take place as an opportunity to welcome the practice of housing finance being treated as off balance sheet, bringing Britain into line with much of the rest of Europe and allowing local authorities greater flexibility to borrow against the existing stock. I confess that I would not support that. I put on record in this Chamber as long ago as 2007 my grave reservations about off balance sheet financing for private finance initiative and public-private partnership projects by the previous Government. The cost of those will become apparent over the next 25 years. At a time when we need to improve our infrastructure, we have huge costs for schools, hospitals, prisons and road building that have already been put in place. I therefore think that we should above all try to avoid that technique.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)]

A lovely bit of slapstick—I really enjoyed that—but we should start with a few facts. In 1997, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), looked on the outgoing Government’s record as a disaster, as I did. They had built 830,000 homes but sold 1.2 million, and 400,000 homes were lost to the social rented sector, which had a waiting list of just more than 1 million. The Labour party and the new Labour Government said that they would tackle the situation. They built 377,000 homes for rent and 182,000 homes for the low-cost home-ownership market—a total of 559,000 homes for the social sector built during Labour’s years in office. However, they sold 605,000 homes under the right to buy and other legislation. During Labour’s period in office, the number of homes in the social sector reduced by 45,530.

The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) said that the priority, as regards social housing, should be the very poorest, so we should judge Labour’s record on what it did to the social rented sector, and exclude low-cost home ownership. If we do that, we find that the number of homes in the social rented sector during Labour’s period in office fell by 227,000. Fewer homes were available for rent, so I will not take the characterisation offered by the right hon. Gentleman, who is an expert in many things, but who has forgotten how to count.

[Mr Raynsford]

Will the hon. Gentleman please tell us how many of the homes he mentioned were uninhabitable because of the appalling condition they were in, and how many homes were improved under the decent homes programme? Will he tell us about the millions of homes in decent condition that are now available for social rent because of investment by the previous Government?

[Andrew Stunell]

I welcome that, and I am happy to report that we are continuing the investment in the decent homes programme.

Let me get to the right hon. Gentleman’s central proposition, which is that there was somehow no evidence of a need to change housing policies. The previous Government’s housing policy depended on continuing with the claim that they had dealt with boom and bust. As it turned out, they had dealt only with the boom. There is no public money available—those were the words of the outgoing Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne). Indeed, during this debate, the Government will have borrowed another £24 million to fund the services that we deliver, but for which we have no income. An extra £400 million will be borrowed today, and another £400 million extra will be borrowed tomorrow and every day this year. This year, £150 billion will be borrowed. The money is not there.

What about targets? We have heard some nonsense from the Labour Front Bencher about thousands of homes having been cancelled. What she actually means is that many of the homes in the Labour targets have not been built. Last year, when Labour was in power, 78,000 fewer homes were built than were in the Government’s target. Only 57% of the target was met. We know, therefore, that the Opposition’s figures depend on an economy that Labour bust, on public money that we do not have, and on public targets that did not work.