Questions for Grant Shapps on Question Time

The housing minister is forced to stand in at the last minute as Baroness Warsi is "indisposed".

Baroness Warsi has withdrawn from tonight's edition of Question Time. Rumours are currently flying as to whether this is as a result of Mehdi Hasan's interview with her in this week's NS (full version not yet online -- go and buy and issue of the magazine) , in which she controversially states that Tory losses in "at least three seats" at the last election were "based on electoral fraud... predominantly in the Asian community", or whether she in fact pulled out days before publication, as government spinners seem to be putting about at the moment.

She will be replaced on tonight's programme by Grant Shapps, Conservative MP for Welwyn Hatfield, Minister of State for Housing & Local Government, and Question Time novice. We can only imagine the commotion in his office right now as he tries to prepare to face Simon Hughes, Diane Abbott, David Starkey and Brian Cox at about four hours' notice.

Surely, he will be asked about Lady Warsi's absence, and in particular the identity of the three seats she names in the interview. But there are questions that need to be put to Shapps himself -- as housing minister, he is now responsible for ameliorating the ever-worsening crisis in the UK's housing sector.

The loss of council homes for life, the chronic shortage of affordable housing in every part of the UK, and his recent remarks on housing association salaries are all areas where Shapps should be grilled.

But perhaps most important to pin down is the effect of the planned council tax freeze on new houses, or the New Homes Bonus scheme, as it has been called. Toby Thomas over at Left Foot Forward reports that shadow housing minister John Healey, in his speech to the Labour Party conference today, has once again strongly criticised this particular policy, arguing that it will in fact result in an increase in council tax, a disincentive for local authorities to build new houses, and an overall effect that some local authorities will end up paying the housing bills of others out of existing budgets (the New Homes Bonus will come out of existing grants). Toby writes:

Healey's analysis finds that 103 councils will suffer a fund-cut of on average £2 million each, helping to pay for the 222 councils who will gain by £400,000. Bigger towns are likely to lose out most, with Birmingham needing 8,500 homes a year built to avoid losing its grant, while Blaby in Leicestershire needs just 70.

This effect could in turn be heightened should local authorities choose not to embrace their newly-devolved role as the lead agency for house-building in their area. In an interview I did last week with Sir Bob Kerslake, incoming permanent secretary at Communities and Local Government and currently chief executive of the Homes and Communities Agency, he expressed the hope that "forward-looking" local authorities will seize on these incentives, but acknowledged that this will create inequality across the UK. He said:

"You can work with local authorities and show them potential, and even trade off one benefit of housing with another benefit, but in teh end I thnk if they set their face against it then they have to realise that different places will end up in different situations... That is the reality of looking backward."

Perhaps Grant Shapps will be able to shed some light this evening on what people stuck in poor quality housing who happen to live in a backward looking local authority should do to improve their situation, when faced with the reality of the arbitrary inequality created by such "big society" devolution.

Caroline Crampton is assistant editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

PMQs review: Theresa May shows again that Brexit means hard Brexit

The Prime Minister's promise of "an end to free movement" is incompatible with single market membership. 

Theresa May, it is commonly said, has told us nothing about Brexit. At today's PMQs, Jeremy Corbyn ran with this line, demanding that May offer "some clarity". In response, as she has before, May stated what has become her defining aim: "an end to free movement". This vow makes a "hard Brexit" (or "chaotic Brexit" as Corbyn called it) all but inevitable. The EU regards the "four freedoms" (goods, capital, services and people) as indivisible and will not grant the UK an exemption. The risk of empowering eurosceptics elsewhere is too great. Only at the cost of leaving the single market will the UK regain control of immigration.

May sought to open up a dividing line by declaring that "the Labour Party wants to continue with free movement" (it has refused to rule out its continuation). "I want to deliver on the will of the British people, he is trying to frustrate the British people," she said. The problem is determining what the people's will is. Though polls show voters want control of free movement, they also show they want to maintain single market membership. It is not only Boris Johnson who is pro-having cake and pro-eating it. 

Corbyn later revealed that he had been "consulting the great philosophers" as to the meaning of Brexit (a possible explanation for the non-mention of Heathrow, Zac Goldsmith's resignation and May's Goldman Sachs speech). "All I can come up with is Baldrick, who says our cunning plan is to have no plan," he quipped. Without missing a beat, May replied: "I'm interested that [he] chose Baldrick, of course the actor playing Baldrick was a member of the Labour Party, as I recall." (Tony Robinson, a Corbyn critic ("crap leader"), later tweeted that he still is one). "We're going to deliver the best possible deal in goods and services and we're going to deliver an end to free movement," May continued. The problem for her is that the latter aim means that the "best possible deal" may be a long way from the best. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.