---

Housing and the Credit Crunch

I will move on to discuss that point about the HRA. Now, however, is perhaps the time that I ought to move on to another specific point. But before I do so, I will say that the analysis that I have done on new build within Islington shows that, in the last 10 years, only one in seven new flats have been social rented housing provided by the Liberal Democrats, which means that the housing waiting list continues to get worse and worse, because people simply cannot afford to buy. Although I agree that, in an ideal world, it would have been a very good idea for the Government not only to do up all the social housing within Islington but to build more social housing, nevertheless it may be that reality steps in and there are limits in the budgets that we have. The one thing that we could do and should do but have not done in Islington is to stand up to developers and say, "You cannot build in this area unless 50 per cent. of what you are going to build is affordable housing and, in the Islington context, that is social rented housing". Because my local authority has not done that and instead copped out of doing it, many opportunities have been lost. The situation is not helped by the fact that much publicly-owned land in Islington has been sold off by the local authority, so that now the Government are focusing on building more affordable housing—social rented housing, in my book—there is very little public land upon which we can now build social rented housing. That is a great shame and the problem continues to this day. For example, in just two weeks City Forum was given planning permission to build thousands of flats in a very large area of Finsbury. City Forum is building a large amount of student properties. Frankly, we have enough students. I like students, but we have too many students. We have enough student accommodation as it is and the precious land of Finsbury should not be used to build more student accommodation. Of course, the problem with student accommodation is that it is planning-flat. It does not become part of any percentage section— 30 per cent., 20 per cent., 50 per cent., or whatever—that has to be met and so it just becomes neutral. Consequently, what always happens within a new development is that property for students is developed and whatever is left is parcelled up to the absolute minimum that the developer feels that they can get away with. Personally, I feel that we should be standing up to developers much more than we have been. We have lost an opportunity and we have lost too much land. People like Nelopa and Sarah are still languishing on the waiting list, because we have not been pragmatic and used the opportunities that have been available to us. My local authority recently stated that it would build a handful of council houses to rent, and I welcome that. At the same time, however, the Government are putting together a fund to kick-start projects that have started to dwindle and to augment the work that local authorities are doing, and I am concerned that my local authority has not stepped up to face the challenge. It has a handful of homes—that reveals the poverty of its ambition—but it is not committed to building as many social rented houses as it can. It is bidding for some of the funding, and we welcomed that until we realised from the small print that it wanted to use the funding simply to replace money that it had put to one side to build more council housing. That is not the purpose of the fund. If the Government are stepping in to give local authorities more money, authorities should use it in addition to any money that they have set aside. It is wrong that we should end up with as little as we would have if the Government had provided no additional money. I lobby the Government to get additional funding for Islington, but then I see it fly out the back door because the local authority uses other funding for other purposes. In the meantime, Nelopa and Sarah sit on the waiting list. I understand that proposals to reform the housing revenue account will be published during the recess. I realise that such reform is a complex, technical matter, but if it means that local authorities can take the lead in public housing programmes, it will be very welcome in Islington. It is vital that we get more money for new homes in whatever way we can, and I understand that there are advantages to borrowing through housing associations, for example, because that does not add to the public debt. In the end, however, my constituents do not care whose tenant they are as long as they get somewhere to live. Many of us were interested in the suggestion that councils could borrow in ways that were seen as "reasonable", "prudential" or "sustainable", but will the Minister explain what that might mean in practice? Furthermore, I would ask the Government to ensure that tenants of councils such as Islington are protected from changes in the HRA subsidy system. For a variety of historical reasons, such councils have large debts to service, and it is vital that Islington tenants do not suffer as that debt is repaid. Finally, I turn to the balance of tenure among new homes, and I underline once more the importance of social rented housing—in the end, that is what is important to those on the council waiting list in Islington. The strategic role of local authorities is vital and the HRA review is important, but it is for politicians and campaigners to debate the issues before us. The view of those on the waiting list is that we need more social rented housing. In Islington, we will be pragmatic and take that housing however we can, because we have an absolute crisis.