Everyone should have access to a decent, affordable home. I’m delighted that Labour initiatives such as the Decent Homes scheme have been able to deliver over £20 billion worth of investment in council housing – lifting over a million households out of cold, damp and poor housing and turning around the £19 billion maintenance backlog left behind by the Tories in 1997. Labour’s success in reducing rough sleeping to a thirty year low is likewise important. In Cambridge, the Decent Homes programme has made a real difference to thousands of people, who now have modern kitchens and bathrooms. Now we must move on and make sure that we further improve local neighbourhoods and improve the environmental quality of rented homes in the city.

I have always argued that housing decisions should be taken at a local level. Through my role on Labour’s top policy-making body, I have consistently made the case for council housing, and I was never happy about the pressure put on councils to consider transferring stock to housing associations. I led a broad coalition which challenged current Government policy, culminating in a heated debate at the 2004 Labour Party Conference where  I drafted and proposed the key amendment arguing for a level playing-field for local authorities.  

I was put under huge personal pressure by John Prescott to back down but I stood firm because I knew I had the support of those who had elected me. It was the right thing to do, it kept the debate alive, and I am delighted that the Government’s position has changed and new council homes are once again being built in Cambridge. As a member of Labour’s policy commission on housing, I have also argued for the financial rules around council housing to be reviewed, and pressed for Cambridge to be included as a pilot in the review of the Housing Revenue Account subsidy system. The conclusions from that review will shortly be implemented, and should allow Cambridge much more local control over our housing.

One of the most complicated and controversial local issues is the development of new housing around the city. With many local people priced out of the housing market, and limited affordable rented housing, I am convinced that we need more homes. I have been strongly critical of the planning processes that have determined where those houses should be built, particularly at Cambridge Airport, where I do not believe that the transport infrastructure will cope with the proposed number of new homes. I believe that there should have been a fuller and more robust sustainability appraisal which would have tested other options, such as new settlements a little further away but linked by rail. The Liberal Democrats have put too much faith in urban extensions, somehow believing that very large numbers of people will agree to walk or cycle much longer distances than is normally the case – I do not believe it will happen, and it is unwise to plan on such a basis.

There was much local comment about my party conference speech last year, which included references to Cambourne. In warning of the dangers posed by David Cameron and George Osborne, I meant no offence to either local people or community leaders– indeed when visiting the town in November I was struck by the efforts made to foster a cohesive spirit. But I do think that Cambourne is a stark reminder about past planning decisions – the initiative was supposed to be a model of environmental sustainability, but in reality relies largely on car travel.  My point was that we should not repeat those mistakes. Wherever new housing is located, the transport links must be there from the beginning, otherwise we will be creating further problems, and inevitably creating yet further reliance on cars which will simply lead to further congestion.