Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 27 November 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Housing and Regeneration Bill.


Housing and Regeneration Bill

Sadly, the standards have dropped, and most of the houses have been sold. We must examine the real issues in housing. We need a root-and-branch review of the way in which housing benefits are paid. At least two Members mentioned that. Many of the problems that we encounter in our constituencies relating to both price rises and the difficulty of renting property are caused by our failure to ensure that the price charged matches the quality of the property. The hon. Member for Islington, North was right to say that we should be more careful and more inquisitive about the standards of private rented property if we are paying public money. Is the £14 billion a year paid in housing benefit really good value for money? It is for those who are lucky enough to be in decent houses, but those who are not in decent houses would seriously question any claim that we do not need a review. We must consider what the need really is. Over the past two or three years, the concentration in south Hampshire has been on small properties—one-bedroom flats, some of them high-rise, and properties with a maximum of two bedrooms. As the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) pointed out, people with children need decent homes. If the home is a flat, it should have facilities nearby so that the children can play, but it should really be a house with a garden so that the family can develop in the harmony that we all want. As others have said, the larger four and five-bedroom properties have vanished from the face of housing association builds. I doubt whether any Member could name a large estate on which more than 1 or 2 per cent. of properties are four-bedroom houses, but every local authority in the country needs properties of that kind. Why are they not being built? Why can we not understand that families who need decent homes need that type of property? We need to break down that barrier to development. I support the view that if we are to have 3 million new houses, 1 million of them should be council houses. I do not see anything wrong with calling them what they are. What do terms such as ““social housing”” and ““affordable housing”” mean to people? The Minister could not even give the hon. Member for Islington, North a suitable and understandable definition of affordable housing. People understood what council housing was, and we should be proud of the fact that local authorities in this country built those houses. Tory, Labour and Liberal authorities did it and should be proud of it, and we as a Parliament should trust them enough to give them the chance to do it again. Like the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, I have some doubts about the role of Oftenant. I am curious to know who will start the ball rolling. Who will set the initial guidelines?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
468 c191-2 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Construction Council housing Housing Finance Environment protection Infrastructure Landlord and tenant Low incomes Planning Social rented housing Regeneration Homes and Communities Agency
Legislation
Housing and Regeneration Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk