Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Yvette Cooper (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 7 December 2006. It occurred during Estimates day on Affordable Housing.


Affordable Housing

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman examines the new planning guidance that was published last week. It clearly sets out what we mean by affordable housing. We use the term to mean subsidised shared ownership schemes and social rented housing. However, they could be subsidised purely by planning gain—in other words, by the private sector—or by the public sector. We have changed the definition in the new planning guidance to concentrate more on schemes that are genuinely affordable rather than allowing developers to describe low cost home ownership schemes, which are simply smaller, market properties, as affordable when, in many cases, in practice they are not. Hon. Members have talked about the need for more social housing, and we take that matter very seriously. I want to make it clear to those hon. Members who mentioned investment in existing homes as well as in new homes that we will have invested £40 billion by 2010 in improving council homes and social housing across the country. That includes a more than 30 per cent. increase in funding going directly to councils. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) expressed concern about direct funding to councils; we have increased it by 30 per cent. in real terms to help them to improve their council housing stock. We are also going further with arm’s length management organisations and other stock transfers. I have to say, however, that if we had not inherited council homes that were in such a shocking state of disrepair in 1997, with more than 2 million families living in homes that did not meet basic standards of decency, we could have spent a hefty chunk of that £40 billion on new social housing. The shocking legacy of the 1980s and 1990s under the Conservatives is still being felt right across the social housing sector. We need to go further by investing in more social housing, and we have said that that will be a priority for the spending review. We also need to look at ways of levering in additional resources through planning gain. We take seriously the need to look at all aspects of improving housing. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) raised specific issues relating to Birmingham, and we are making clear to Birmingham the importance of its demonstrating that its approach continues to be sustainable. There needs to be more shared ownership, and we are increasing to 160,000 the number of families who can be helped into shared ownership, including key workers and other first-time buyers, partly as a result of levering additional private sector investment into shared ownership schemes. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) raised the issue of temporary accommodation. She will be aware that we have set up a scheme to start buying back social housing, funded by savings from housing benefit. Clearly we also need to ensure that we provide the billions of pounds needed for infrastructure. We are already doing that across the Thames Gateway, and we are consulting on ways to raise this further. Members have raised particular issues relating to family homes. The new planning guidance clearly states that we need more family homes, and that we need to concentrate more on the needs of children, who have different needs from the rest of us in terms of gardens, parks and play areas. We need more family homes in our cities, where we often see a great deal of investment in flats but not the additional investment that we need in family homes. We recognise that Conservative Members have taken different views on this matter in the past. A recent edition of Inside Housing carries a fetching photo of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, alongside his suggestion, ““Let’s build on farmland””, rather than in towns and cities. In the same article, however, his boss, the hon. Member for Meriden is quoted as saying:"““Every sod of turf torn up from a greenfield site to make way for new housing development is an indictment of the government’s failed housing policy””." In response to that, even the Campaign to Protect Rural England said:"““Who is controlling Conservative policy? Who indeed?””" Perhaps it is the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). Speaking to the Conservative party conference, and claiming to represent the next generation, he said:"““We are to be the party of aspiration. And that means building more houses and flats for young people””." However, speaking to Age Concern just three weeks later, he said:"““We need to change the planning rules so that we get fewer small flats and…fewer homes designed for young, single people””." That represents a complete flip-flop in the space of just three weeks. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath might not agree with his boss, but his ultimate boss, the right hon. Member for Witney, does not even agree with himself. We have made it clear that we need to build more homes for the next generation; we agree with the Select Committee report on that. We only hope that Conservative Members will demonstrate a little more consistency in supporting us as we build the new homes that the next generation needs. Question deferred, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54, (Consideration of estimates).


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
454 c509-11 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Construction Housing Empty property Social rented housing Communities and Local Government Committee
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk