UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Paul Boateng

  • Paul Boateng – 2002 Speech to the Institute of Asian Business Annual Dinner

    Paul Boateng – 2002 Speech to the Institute of Asian Business Annual Dinner

    The speech made by Paul Boateng, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, on 2 November 2002.

    Tonight is about work – a dynamic Asian business community in a dynamic UK economy – but it is also about having a good time – pleasant location – good food – old friends.

    As Rabindranath Tagore wrote so eloquently “God respects me when I work, but He loves me when I sing”.

    Asian businesses play an important part in the economy of Birmingham, the West Midlands, and the entire UK. We are determined to offer you every possible support.

    In our first term, we introduced important reforms to promote macroeconomic stability and get the public finances into order. Difficult decisions were taken, but they worked, and so now we have low inflation, low interest rates, and record levels of employment.

    Here in the West Midlands employment has grown by 69,000 since the 1997 election – a bigger pool of labour for your business to draw on.

    Now, as we move into our second term, the focus has shifted. The centre has moved towards policies that support balanced growth across all the regions and nations of the UK that support enterprise, and that support fairness. That means building on a platform of macro-economic stability with support for the small business community and, more than that, it means enterprise for all – giving everyone the chance to start out and succeed in business.

    The West Midlands is a dynamic and productive region, home to around 290,000 businesses, rapidly expanding its interest in e-commerce and software with over 1800 Information and Communication Technology companies. The natural choice for an increasingly high level of inward investment – with 99 projects in 1999-2000.

    World-class universities and research institutes introduce the opportunity to start up high tech value added businesses – diversifying the manufacturing base.

    Yet with GDP per head in the West Midlands languishing at twelve and a half thousand pounds a year, trailing the national average, and with similar disparities across other regions, there is more work to do to ensure everyone can share in the growing prosperity of the UK.

    Part of the answer is to increase the start up and survival rate of small businesses. It is the small businesses of today that are the big employers, wealth creators, and money-spinners of tomorrow. So it is unfortunate that the rate of small business creation in the West Midlands, at just over 14 registrations per thousand two years ago, is too low.

    In government, we want to turn this situation round, not just because it is morally right to give everyone the chance to start out and too succeed – building a better future for themselves and their families – as successive generations of Asian businessmen and women have done – but because it makes economic sense to enable everyone to reach their full potential. Support for small firms is an important theme running through this government’s policies. In the Asian community, where levels of entrepreneurial activity are high, we have a natural ally.

    Tax cuts in successive Budgets mean we have a very favourable tax regime for small companies. Indeed, the OECD index shows that the UK has fewer barriers to entrepreneurship than any other OECD country.

    The entrepreneurial spirit is thriving amongst ethnic minority communities in Britain, which are responsible for nearly twice as many start-ups per person as the rest of the country. British Asians in particular have a great history of entrepreneurial activity – our research shows that 32% of all British Asians are either already working as entrepreneurs, or are seriously considering it.

    That is a basis on which we can build. We are determined to ensure that everyone, no matter what their background, has access to the opportunities they need to start out and to succeed.

    Earlier in the year I spoke at a conference hosted by the Confederation of Indian Industry and the Confederation of British Industry. I was impressed by the strength of the relationship, particularly in Information and Communication Technology, and the potential for future development – sharing ideas and strengthening trade links – across a whole range of areas.

    The challenge for government and for the business community is to work together to release that potential

    In education we are launching an initiative to give every child the chance to think about running their own business – creating a culture of innovation and sewing the seeds of future growth. It has become almost a cliché that ambitious parents from Asian communities regard law, accountancy and medicine as the careers for their children. I want to add ‘entrepreneur’ to that list. It can and should belong there.

    Education also means ensuring workers have the right skills – driving up levels of productivity and protecting workers against social exclusion. Skills were an important priority in the Spending Review.

    In finance we are working with the banks to ensure equitable access to start up capital for businesses owned by Black and Minority Ethnic groups.

    The need to increase the supply of regional risk capital and improve access to finance for SMEs is a strategic priority for Advantage West Midlands. The launch of the Regional Venture Capital Funds signals our support: funds in each and every region of the UK designed to fill the equity gap for investments below £500,000 in small businesses with high growth potential.

    The challenge for the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and for umbrella organisations like the Institute of Asian Business is to raise the level of financial awareness for Asian businesses across the West Midlands and across the UK.

    The Regional Development Agencies, Advantage West Midlands, are the drivers of economic growth and the catalyst for improvements in productivity.

    I know, for example, that they have taken forward proposals on transport priorities for the West Midlands – intended to provide a firm foundation on which to secure the investment required for the benefit of the region.

    So it is critical that RDAs make sure that their whole region – business, trade unions, universities and colleges, Councillors, Members of Parliament and the wider community, feel that their voices are properly heard and their concerns reflected in the development of policy. Business engagement is absolutely essential. The challenge now for Asian business is twofold. First, to take advantage of the productivity initiatives we are now putting in place – on innovation, investment, skills, and enterprise. And second, to get involved with the agencies that are driving devolution – to help lead and influence the new regional economic agenda.

    Across government, we know we need to do more to address the concerns of small business and to provide tailored, customer focused services. That is why we have established:

    The Small Business Service – championing the importance of entrepreneurship across society;

    The Phoenix Fund – a £96m programme to promote enterprise in deprived areas and amongst under-represented groups;

    The Ethnic Minority Business Forum – strengthening the dialogue between Government and Asian companies.

    A framework of macro-economic stability, a low tax environment, micro-economic reforms to encourage enterprise and develop workforce skills, and specific support targeted on the areas of greatest need – it all adds up to a massive commitment, from government, to the success of the Asian business community.

    The challenge now is to engage with the structures we have put in place, invest for the future, and ensure a central place for a dynamic, productive Asian business community in a dynamic, productive UK economy.

  • Paul Boateng – 2002 Speech to the Charities Taxation Reform Group

    Paul Boateng – 2002 Speech to the Charities Taxation Reform Group

    The speech made by Paul Boateng, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in London on 15 January 2002.

    The principle of voluntary action has a long history in the UK. It was the great philanthropists of the 19th Century that drove social reform and whose charity moved the mountains of illiteracy, ill health and poverty. Here in London, as in other towns and cities across the country, there is a tradition of philanthropy, self-help and mutualism ingrained among the people. We can see it in the tens of thousands who volunteer of their time, their money and their expertise.

    The sector still thrives: in 2000 the overall amount donated by the general public stood at £5.76bn – a return to the high levels of the early 1990s. The challenge now is to broaden the base of charitable giving, and encourage even more people to start donating of their time and their money – helping your organisations to play a bigger part in the delivery of public services and the renewal of the public space.

    We are committed to reducing the burden of taxation, ameliorating the administrative cost, and helping you to play a proper part in the renewal of the public spaces we all inhabit. To achieve this objective it is vital that we work closely with your organisation: after all, you are the experts. I know that Mike Eland from Customs and Dave Hartnett from Inland Revenue spoke at your last AGM and I’m delighted to be here today to reaffirm the relationship. Our shared aim must be to build a new partnership between government and the ‘third sector’ – using your strengths to challenge, compliment, and reinforce government policy.

    Strengths of the voluntary sector

    The strengths of the voluntary sector lie in its:

    Local character;
    Flexibility to innovate;
    Personalised approach;
    Capacity to strengthen citizenship; and
    Running through all of these, the ability to reach out to isolated and marginalized groups.

    The local character of the voluntary sector is perhaps its most important quality. It is from understanding of the local community that the strength of the voluntary sector flows. Where the state is sometimes remote and inflexible the voluntary sector is always there, close at hand, in the street, the neighbourhood or the town.

    This local character gives the voluntary sector the strength to be flexible and develop innovative solutions to social problems. Where the government sets down the national standards, the voluntary sector can develop the local capacity, local skills, and local amenities necessary to translate the standards into the experiences of local people.

    This flexibility means that the voluntary sector can develop highly individual responses to different problems; enabling the opportunities offered by the state to be inflected into the language of local communities. The government sees the total number unemployed, responds with the New Deal and helps get half a million back to work. The Rainbow Refugee Network sees wasted potential in the refugee communities here in London, provides advice on welfare benefits, education, and employment, and helps build a bridge between Asian, African and East European asylum seekers and the mainstream of social opportunity.

    The voluntary sector does not replace the state, indeed it is the capacity of the voluntary sector to challenge the government, stimulate policy debates, promote a pluralist society and enhance democracy that makes it so valuable. In building a partnership with the voluntary sector we are acknowledging that it is organisations like Help the Aged, OXFAM, and MENCAP, as well as smaller organisations operating here in London like Enfield Community Transport scheme or the Stonebridge Training and Education Project in my own constituency, that enable people to engage more effectively with the government, fulfil their true potential, and grow into better citizens.

    Measures to help voluntary sector

    We want to forge a new partnership with the voluntary sector. To enable your organisations to continue running innovative schemes on a local, national and international level, we want to help raise the level of charitable giving.

    For too long the voluntary sector has been held back by archaic rules, bad laws, and poor tax legislation. As experts in charity finance you know that the voluntary sector needs a fair and sympathetic legal and economic framework within which to operate: with your help we have begun to build it. This is a collaborative process – where we have moved forwards, it has been through dialogue and consultation. Over 50% of the ideas proposed by the CTRG on the recent Review of Charity Taxation were accepted and implemented by this government – we do listen and we do act.

    But perhaps we need a more structured approach to our dialogue to further build on the good relationship between charities and the Government. I am therefore asking officials to put in place more formal arrangements for regular meetings – perhaps half yearly – where the sector can come together with Treasury, Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue, and engage in constructive dialogue. Regular meetings would allow us to reflect together on what works, where guidance may be improved and how we can move forward on particular issues of concern to the sector.

    It is worth taking a moment to recall how much has been achieved.

    The Gift Aid changes, introduced in Budget 2000, mean that for every pound a UK taxpayer donates to charity the government is prepared to contribute to that charity an additional 28 pence. People and companies can donate listed shares to charity, without having to pay any capital gains tax, and get extra tax relief for the full value of the shares.

    We have abolished the ceiling on how much money employees can give through the pay packet – payroll giving can now be any sum an employee chooses. Until April 2003, we are offering a special 10 per cent supplement on all payroll donations to charities. So for every pound contributed through payroll giving, the government will contribute up to 50 pence worth of tax relief. I know that the CTRG has suggested extension of this 10% supplement and this is an idea that we will give careful consideration.

    We are already beginning to see the results from the changes we have made: donations through payroll giving rose by more than £18 million in 2000/2001.

    In the PBR we set out further measures to support charities, including:

    An Inland Revenue consultation on whether to allow tax payers to donate directly to charities on the annual tax form – and gain tax relief for doing so. I hope that the CTRG will play an important role in the consultation process;

    The abolition of football pools tax – so every charity or local sports club who run pools based competitions will see this tax liability abolished; and

    The Chancellor has re-stated the fact that charities collecting donations of unwanted foreign coins from taxpayers could benefit from the 28% tax top up through Gift Aid.

    I know that Lee Jones [Deputy Chair of the Charity Finance Directors Group] welcomed the Chancellor’s statement – predicting that it would lead to an increase in income for your organisations. We recognise that charities are becoming the ‘third sector’ and we are committed to take further action, where possible , to simplify the tax structure – driving costs down and donations up.

    Budget 2002 will provide another opportunity to consider the tax burden on charities and on charitable giving. I know that the CTRG has made a number of proposals on irrecoverable VAT; on relaxation of the rules governing trading activities by charities; and on reducing the administrative burden that the tax system imposes. Obviously I can’t tell you what measures Budget 2002 will actually contain – but all of these suggestions will receive careful consideration.

    Performance and Innovation Unit Review

    To help us improve the capacity of voluntary organisations to provide their vital services, and to underline the importance of the partnership between government and charities, we have established two review teams.

    In the Cabinet Office the Performance and Innovation Unit are developing proposals for modernising the legal and regulatory framework for charities and the voluntary sector. The aim is to enable existing organisations to thrive and grow, encourage the development of new types of organisation, and ensure public confidence in the voluntary sector. We want a legal and regulatory framework that stimulates, rather than stifles, social enterprises.

    The review team are engaging in extensive consultation with the sector. So far they have run six major consultation events around the UK. I know that the Charity Finance Directors Group have responded positively to the consultation – calling for strong self-regulation measures, and opportunities for the charities themselves to measure performance and improve transparency. We do listen to what you have to say and it will be reflected in the final report when it is published in spring of this year.

    Cross cutting review

    Alongside the work of the Performance and Innovation Unit the Treasury has launched a cross cutting review of policy. We are re-examining the ways in which the ‘third sector’ is involved in overseeing and delivering services. The aim is to understand more fully how the government can work effectively with the voluntary sector to deliver high quality services, taking account of your key role in strengthening civil society and building capacity in communities. We are:

    Mapping the many ways in which the voluntary sector is already involved in overseeing and delivering services.

    Examining best practice in effective partnership between the voluntary sector and the public sector – suggesting practical ways of improving the relationship and spreading good ideas; and

    Breaking down the barriers to voluntary involvement in delivering better public services: working to ensure that the fiscal and regulatory framework create a level playing field on which charities can operate on the same terms as local government and private sector providers.

    This is an opportunity for you to tell us what works, what doesn’t, and how existing resources can best be used to help your organisations participate in the delivery of high quality public services. It is about making existing resources work better for all of us.

    As charity tax and finance experts you have a wealth of experience, commitment and insight about what works. This is exactly the kind of information we are trying to capture in the review, and so we want you to bring your knowledge to the fore.

    Whether you work locally, regionally or nationally, we want to hear from you. Over the coming days and weeks we will be collecting and collating views from experts all over the country. I am determined that your views will make a real difference to the final report – which will be produced later this year.

    Of course one of the reasons the CTRG exists is to work with government – at all levels – and ensure that the voice of the voluntary sector is heard on tax issues. Earlier this week I met with Nick Kavanagh to discuss other issues of mutual concern. The foundations are in place; we have the basis of a strong working relationship.

    We won’t always agree on all issues. I know that you have concerns about irrecoverable VAT, about EU legislation, and about tax relief on buildings used for charitable purposes. You know that sometimes our views differ, and that whilst we will always lend a sympathetic ear sometimes we will not agree with all your conclusions. The important thing is to keep the channels of communication open – so the voice of the voluntary sector is not a voice crying out in the wilderness but a voice at the heart of government, echoing down the corridors of power, resonating in European negotiations, and reflected in the policies of this government.

    So when the Treasury’s Cross Cutting Review is completed – it will reflect your views; in Budget negotiations – your submission will receive the attention it deserves; and in negotiations on the EU VAT Directive we will carry your concerns with us to Brussels. This is the basis of a new and constructive relationship between an open government and an independent voluntary sector. As we remake our public services we want you to be full partners, that is why we launched the cross cutting review, that is why I am taking a close personal interest, and that is how we will deliver on our shared social objectives.

    Our vision is of a strong, independent voluntary sector, operating within a modern, efficient taxation and regulatory system – working closely with government to deliver the public services people expect and demand. Working together, we can make that vision a reality.

    Thank you.

  • Paul Boateng – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    Paul Boateng – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    The tribute made by Paul Boateng, Baron Boateng, in the House of Lords on 10 September 2022.

    My Lords, having heard the moving contributions of colleagues yesterday—and I think particularly of the contribution of the Leader of the House, my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—my wife Janet and I very much wanted to go down to Buckingham Palace and, like so many others throughout our land, pay a floral tribute to Her late Majesty. The mood and what was said and the make-up of the crowd outside Buckingham Palace said everything that ever needs to be said about Her late Majesty.

    There was a sense of loss and emptiness, and of people somehow feeling that something that was stable, certain and ever-present in their lives was no longer there—something that was of value to them. Then there was also a sense of gratitude for a life well-lived, one of service and dedication to duty, and there was a sense of gratitude to her and to her family, for whom we must feel particularly at this time, in their personal loss. We have lost a sovereign; they have lost a mother, a grandmother and a great-grandmother. But there was also a sense of gratitude for the joyfulness of her reign and for the grace and beauty that she always brought to her duty. As for the make-up of the crowd, it was international—the embodiment of so many nations. I reckon that all the continents of the world were present there, with everyone feeling that she belonged to them. Yes, she was our Queen, but she was actually, genuinely, the Queen of the world.

    I thought particularly, in terms of my own life, of Queen and Commonwealth. I was brought up in the Commonwealth. In the course of her long reign, the Queen made two visits to Ghana, in 1961 and 1999. In 1961, I was a little boy in the dust waving a flag on the side of the road; in 1999, I was one of her Ministers. But it is really the 1961 visit to Ghana about which I just want to say a few words. It was a problematic visit in many ways. There were many, including those on all sides in this House, who said that she should not go, that her life would be in danger and that Ghana was not a place that she should go to or be in. She went regardless. She went because the Commonwealth mattered to her, Ghana mattered to her and Britain’s place in the world mattered to her. She knew that not going would be seen as a snub, would undermine the Commonwealth and would be contrary to Britain’s interest.

    She displayed that courage, perseverance and determination that was so characteristic of her. It is said—and there is no reason to disbelieve it—that she said to her Prime Minister:

    “How silly I should look if I was scared to visit Ghana and then Khrushchev went and had a good reception … I am not a film star. I am the head of the Commonwealth — and I am paid to face any risks that may be involved. Nor do I say this lightly. Do not forget that I have three children.”

    That was her courage.

    She went, and it was an outstanding success. As it happens, my father was Minister of the Interior and worked with Duncan Sandys, of the other place and of this House, to make sure that it was a success in terms of security, because that was their responsibility. It was a success that she herself had brought about. It was a triumph. That, for me, says it all about her political acuity, her courage and her commitment and dedication to the Commonwealth.

    The messages have been flooding in. I am a former chair of the English-Speaking Union and I chair the International Council of the Duke of Edinburgh’s International Award Association. We all have several WhatsApp groups these days, and there have been messages from all over the world of appreciation, respect, gratitude and love. She was loved. She was loved here in this House, in the country and around the world.

    We bumped into a small group outside Buckingham Palace on that visit yesterday. They were called Christians in Entertainment and happened to be laying flowers at the same time. They had come out because of Her Majesty’s support for charities in the entertainment world and the Royal Variety shows, which we all remember and which she graced on so many occasions. Suddenly, as they were there and laying flowers, they began to pray. They prayed, and all those around us and them joined in that prayer. It was a prayer of gratitude to our God for our late Queen. God bless our late Majesty, and God save the King, as he becomes Head of the Commonwealth, for which she gave all her life’s service.

  • Paul Boateng – 1987 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Paul Boateng, the then Labour MP for Brent South, in the House of Commons on 26 June 1987.

    It is with a certain amount of trepidation that I rise to address the House so soon after my entry into Parliament. However, I am fortified in my purpose by the knowledge that there is a tradition in this House that one’s maiden speech is treated with a degree of courtesy and consideration that is never thereafter afforded to an hon. Member. In saying that, I echo the words and sentiments of my distinguished predecessor the former hon. Member for Brent, South Mr. Laurie Pavitt. As many hon. Members know, Mr. Pavitt entered this House in 1959, and at the time he was described as the first voluntary speaker in the debate after the Gracious Speech. He spoke on the Health Service, a topic to which he was to return on many occasions in this House and in his constituency. It is a cause to which he made a very great contribution.

    ​ Mr. Pavitt was noted for his warmth and sincerity and for his depth of knowledge on his specialist subjects. He was also well known for his consideration to his colleagues and, I am bound to say, to his successor. The advice that he gave to a new Member in relation to a maiden speech was also given to and taken up in his book by Mr. Speaker Thomas. It was that one should get it over with. That was the advice that he gave, and it is the advice that I have taken.
    When one considers, as one has had to consider over the past day, the Gracious Speech, it is clear that that word has also been passed to the Prime Minister. It is quite clear that it has been suggested to her and to her Government that they should get it over with. When one looks at the contents of the Gracious Speech, one sees why there could not be a more divisive or a more destructive programme. One wonders whence the Prime Minister’s advice came. I received friendly advice. The Prime Minister’s advice could not have come from her predecessor, her one remaining predecessor in this House, because, if he were to give her any advice, it would certainly not be friendly and the surprise would be if she accepted it anyway. It must have come from some other guardian angel, or perhaps more likely from a malign familiar. Perhaps it came from the Secretary of State for the Environment, the cat that the Prime Minister has set to catch the local authority mouse. Perhaps it came from that quarter.

    Quite clearly there is nothing in the Gracious Speech to which we can look to promote consensus. There is everything in it to provoke controversy. Therefore, in my maiden speech I find myself in some difficulty in terms of even attempting to keep to the tradition of avoiding controversy. I am conscious of the fact that this is a foreign affairs day. I crave the indulgence of the House. I shall speak not about the sub-Saharan debt crisis or about South Africa, although they are two problems of real and immediate concern to my constituents and I hope in due course to be allowed to return to them; I shall concentrate instead on domestic issues.

    When one listens to the way in which the occupants of the Conservative Benches speak about the inner cities and how they refer to Brent, Haringey, Islington, Leicester and Glasgow, one might well think they were speaking about another country. That is because of the lack of knowledge and shallowness of understanding that they show and, indeed, for all that they care. Those places might just as well be the Balkans. Indeed, when one thinks about it, that is precisely what the Government intend for the inner cities. They intend the Balkanisation of the inner cities of our country. They intend to break them up, divide them and to set one against the other to prevent them being a real power or force for change or progress. They intend to divide and rule. They intend the Balkanisation of the inner cities. The Gracious Speech reveals that to be the prospect for the inner cities in the years ahead.

    Nowhere is that more clear or evident than in education and housing. It is clear that what is proposed is the destruction of municipal Socialism, not the development of the municipalities. The Government care nothing for that, but they care everything for the destruction of the gains that have been made by the people of the inner cities since the war.

    It is useful to compare the Gracious Speech that my distinguished predecessor, Mr. Laurie Pavitt, addressed in his remarks in 1959 with the Gracious Speech that we heard yesterday. It is an interesting comparison, not least ​ on the subject of housing because in 1959 it was possible for a Conservative Government to say that new house building would be mantained at a high level and that the slum clearance campaign would continue. That is what a Conservative Government said in 1959. What do they say today? They say :

    “Measures will he brought before you to effect a major reform of housing legislation in England and Wales.”

    The consensus on housing during the past 28 years has been broken and shattered, and one can see why. In the rise of the Conservative party during the past 28 years we have seen the replacement of any hope of consensus and of any real care for the people and problems of the inner cities by the men and woman who now swell the ranks of the Conservative party and sit on the Government Benches. We have seen consensus replaced by zealots and place persons who want nothing so much as the destruction of our gains and our party, and who will do anything to achieve that goal. [Interruption.] Ministers may well laugh and lounge on the Front Bench now, but they should bear in mind what happened to some of the other zealots and place persons who lounged there before, when the Conservatives sought the destruction of the inner cities and moved against the Greater London council. Those Ministers soon found themselves languishing on the Back Benches. Lounge now and languish later is the message that some Ministers should take with them when they return to their places outside the House.

    When one considers the proposals for housing, one sees a pattern and set of proposals that in no way even begin to address the crisis of the time. We need only consider the situation in London. There are 30,000 homeless families, 9,000 in bed-and-breakfast, half a million families on council waiting lists, and one in five live in unsatisfactory accommodation. About £7 billion is needed to repair the existing housing stock. Those are the stark figures for London.
    In the borough of Brent, which is seventh on the list of housing deprivation in Greater London, the position grows worse daily. More than 800 families are crammed into bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and there are 1,500 homeless families in all. What do those figures mean? They mean the woman who comes to my constituency surgery with three children and tells me that she has only one room to which to return in a shabby bed-and-breakfast hotel in Earl’s Court. There is nowhere for the children to go, nowhere for her to deal with the dirty nappies, and nowhere that she can try to bring up a family. And the Government say that they are concerned about that.

    What do the Government’s policies mean in terms of alleviating the suffering of the people whom we are sent here to represent? They include the parents who come to my surgery from the Stonebridge estate and tell me that they have five children and live in a three-bedroomed house. The youngest child, who is hyperactive, is obliged to share a bed with two teenage sons—one bed for three boys. The child has no garden in which to play and runs round in the house tearing up the carpets and the lining of the sofas because of his frustration. What am I supposed to tell them, based on this Queen’s Speech? What hope can I give them that they will obtain a transfer? There is no hope and no chance, because the Government’s proposals hold out nothing but a deterioration in the housing and living conditions of our people.

    We need to give our people some hope and some chance, and there is a basis, in housing at least, for some consensus. But the Government have set their faces against that. They have set their hands to a course that is determined to create in our inner cities the development of welfare housing along American lines—sink estates to which people are condemned, with no prospect of getting out. The better estates, with low-rise housing and perhaps gardens, will be privatised—put out to the highest bidder. Then there is no telling what will happen to the rents, and there is no explanation in their proposals of what will happen to homeless families. Where will they go?

    There is no telling and no explanation in the Government’s proposals about what will happen to housing transfers. How will they be affected? There is no telling and no explanation in their proposals of how they envisage the role of building societies and housing associations. They have told the Government many times, as they have told us, that they need co-operation among local authorities, building societies and housing associations. They do not want one to be set against the other in a spurious competition in which the consumer—- the person who seeks housing—is never the winner. The Government should listen to them and to the advice that they must be receiving from those responsible for telling them what damage and harm their proposals will bring They must find another way and find it soon, because the crisis is growing.

    I give an example of another way in which we can try to resolve the two central problems of our inner cities—unemployment and homelessness. In Brent, 2,500 building workers are unemployed and there are 1,500 homeless families. It cost £5,000 to keep each of those families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. It costs £5,000 a year to keep a family in the misery of bed-and-breakfast The total cost of rent for that accommodation is almost £4 million a year.

    With such money and the waste that directly arises from the housing policies that have been carried out in the past by the Government and that will be made worse in the future, we could build 500 new homes a year for five years. We could create 1,300 jobs to absorb some of the unemployment in my borough alone. Imagine what could be done throughout the country if the Government were prepared to put resources into housing. Those resources would generate wealth, employment and opportunity. At the same time, the Government should call upon the willingness, the skills and resources that exist in our country to address the problems of homelessness in a way that recognises, as we on the Labour Benches have shown by our actions, the importance of having a multiplicity of tenures and forms of ownership. Housing associations should be involved. We want their co-operation and flexibility. We want to encourage owner-occupiers and to ensure—as the GLC sought to do before the Government stripped it of its housing powers—the provision of mortgages for first-time buyers.

    In the last years of the GLC we produced, as a major housing authority in London, more mortgages and gave a greater chance to first-time buyers than any Conservative GLC administration ever did. However. the Government took away the GLC’s housing powers and gave them to the boroughs. The line given then was that those powers best belonged with the boroughs. When the Government were stripping the GLC of its housing powers, the boroughs could do no wrong, but now, ​ suddenly, the line has changed. Now the boroughs are not the right authorities after all and there should be no strategic housing provision—it should be left to the market.

    We cannot leave this matter to the market because that will not address the concerns of the young couples in my constituency who want to buy their own homes and want low-cost house building to enable them to do so. It will not address the concerns of the people on the Stonebridge or Church End estates. It will not address the concerns of people who are currently trapped in intolerable housing conditions.

    The Opposition will oppose the Government tooth and nail on this and other issues that stem from the Gracious Speech. We will seek to mobilise our communities around a great campaign for homes in all our cities. We will seek to mobilise the enthusiasm and commitment that there is in those cities for homes for all. That is the message that will come from the Labour party. It is a message of optimism and of hope that there is in an alternative, there is another way. We represent that way.

    The Government are closing the shutters on housing in London, in my constituency and in Britain. The Government are doing so for a simple, squalid purpose. It is a party purpose, not a national purpose. The Government will be condemned by communities that will be affected in this way. The Government will be condemned by history. Indeed, the Government can be absolutely sure that, as they seek to close the shutters over the next weeks and months, we will not go quietly into the night.