---

House-building Programme

My Lords, I imagine that most of my colleagues in the House would say that everything that can be said about housing has already been said, but I say, ““Not by everyone””, and I intend to make my contribution. I am delighted to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, is in her place because we are two original founding members of the housing repertory company. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, should be very pleased about her debate because timing is always of the essence. Securing the debate at this time through her party provides us with an opportunity to get one or two things off our chests. This afternoon, we have heard speakers with expertise and experience, and it is not possible to replicate anything that has been said. From my own experience, I know that I am listening to people whose hearts are in the right place: they speak from different points of view and have different experiences. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and I are possibly the only two speakers in this debate who share a common experience—that is, we were Members in the other place and therefore we had constituencies and constituents. I speak from the heart of my experience as former chairman of a housing committee and the leader of the London Borough of Enfield and of speaking on the environment in both Houses. The Government have to try to tackle many problems, all of which have been adequately aired. However, I very much hope that they will spare more time and money on the needs of the homeless—although I do not say that they have not done well in that respect. Bob Mellish, as Minister for Housing, and Evelyn Donnington, as chairman of the GLC housing committee, came to Enfield in 1965 and spoke to our council. They persuaded us to have a target of building 1,000 units a year in one London borough. Unfortunately, we were rejected by the electorate two years before it was achieved, but the plans and the programme were laid down. In the 1960s and 70s, there was still slum clearance, relative poverty and low wages. Housing tenure came from three categories: owner occupation, council housing and private rented housing. Looking over the years in preparation for the debate, I realise what a fantastic change there has been in those options. The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to that. The problems of the poor and of trying to solve the housing problem will always be with us. We will never satisfy everyone, from wherever they may come. That does not mean to say that we do not need to keep on trying. When I was leader of the council, I looked around for ways in which to house people and we hit on the idea of buying private houses which were for sale. We did so and we put council tenants in them. Of course, it caused a furore—““It’s creeping socialism””; ““That’s not your job””; and all the rest of it. However, our council was desperate to try to house the people on whose behalf we tried to work and there were solutions. I commend the organisations involved. For example, one private organisation in north London, Limelight Properties, buys up properties, maintains them well and provides accommodation for the Government and their agencies to use in one way or another. There has been a rapid change in that field. Homelessness is a scourge in our society and I applaud the Government for what they have tried to do. Let me quickly indicate their strategy, which was outlined in Sustainable Communities: Homes for All. It stated that they want to prevent homelessness by widening the access to settled homes and halving the number of people living in insecure temporary accommodation by 2010. The Government take on many remits and they want to do a lot of things. They say that that strategy will be carried out by preventing homelessness; providing support for vulnerable people; tackling the wider causes and symptoms of homelessness; helping more people move away from rough sleeping; and providing more settled homes. I believe that that is a laudable objective. I recall twice leaving my surgery during my 10 years as a Member of the other place when I went outside and sat in my car and cried. I could not drive away and I cried in my car at the sheer depression and misery experienced by some of the people who came to me as a result of their housing situation. They were either living in overcrowded accommodation; on a council waiting list; had been evicted; and so forth. There are many reasons why people are homeless and it made me cry twice during my 10 years. I am not ashamed of it, but the sheer inability of one individual—perhaps even one government—to solve the problem is frustrating. The problem will be solved only with patience, with resources and with determination. I say to the Government—my Government, which I support but which I am capable of criticising in many ways—that if they want to concentrate on one aspect of helping people to lead better lives, it should be in housing. Whether we have been an MP or not, we all know that the quality of your home, your house, makes a great difference to the way in which you bring up your children, in which you enjoy life and make a contribution at work. So I say to the Government: three cheers for all that they are doing in housing, especially for the homeless. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. Finally, I do not forget at all the point made to me by the Woodland Trust: that we need to protect our ancient woodland. In its brief, it tells me that 45 sites of ancient woodlands are threatened by housing development. It is one of those dilemmas. The Government want to protect the woodland, but they also want to give permission for housing to be built. I am not talking about nimbys or vested interests; I am talking about the problems that the Government must face. As far as I am concerned, not only are they doing all that they can, but I wish them well in future.