Listen, Mr Hales.

As a mortgage broker for more years than I care to remember, I can tell Mr. Kaye that house prices are determined by three factors - supply, demand and affordability. Exactly the same factors apply to the price of cars and any other commodity he cares to mention. In recent years, two other influences have interfered with normal supply and demand, however.

It has been extensively recorded that a huge proportion of houses are now in single occupancy because of the truly dire rate of divorce. This has created a hitherto undreamed of upward pressure on demand. No government has addressed this problem. Indeed, It can be argued that this present administration is adding to the pressure. It positively encourages single parenthood through its benefits culture.

This brings me neatly to another Gordon Brown scheme which, I believe has contributed more than any other single influence to the most recent upsurge in prices, Working Families Tax Credits.

If a man is earning £16,000 and has a wife (sorry, partner) and tow children, he may claim an extra £4,000 a tear in tax credits - £80 a week he has not had to earn. Higher earners also claim, but for less. I am certain that this money is not valued in the same way as money which is earned, and I believe this is fuelled by price inflation.

By making people dependent upon tax credits and other benefits, not only has it created an intractable social problem, I also believe it is tantamount to vote rigging.

How to repair this damage? When Archbishop of Canterbury Geoffrey fisher, in the 1960s foolishly allowed schools to remove religious education (I mean remove Christian religious education) from a curriculum and when he decreed that a daily assembly was no longer mandatory, he started us on a long slippery slope. We are now reaping the rewards. Words like ‘respect’, ’self-respect’, ‘manners’, and ‘commitment’ are no longer heard. Marriage seems to be some sort of joke. Two whole generations are spiritually bereft and are driven by materialism and instant gratification. Football is the new religion. If we could find ways of reversing this trend, if families and couples persisted and worked out their ‘problems’, taking the long-term view instead of simple moving on to another relationship, or singledom, we might find we have more houses than we can occupy. Prices could even fall.

Firstly, the premise that the number of single occupancy households are of huge proportion is flawed in as much that, between 1971 and 2005 the total housed population in Britain rose 30 per cent, of which one-person households contributed 11%. That is only 29% of the current total, a total which has remained constant and unchanged for the past five years. The simple fact is that familial ordering is changing and becoming more diverse. People are choosing to live in different ways than before.

Britain is not in a benefits culture, although I do agree that benefits in some environments can create a state of dependency and is an issue being talked by various welfare agencies. Such problems of any benefits system are well documented. With the example of the single parent, benefits are indeed available if he or she requires financial assistance. The benefits are means tested and take into account a variety of factors, including income. It is also true that, using Mr. Hales’ example, a family can attempt to claim Working Tax Credits (which differ from Child Tax Credits, which are allotted to a child’s carer regardless of the parents’ employment situation). However, this is means tested, in part, on the family’s total income and other received benefits, and reduces as income increases. Mr. Hales unfortunately insinuates those in less fortunate circumstances to be scroungers who do not appreciate the money they are allowed. This is in ignorance of that fact that nine out of every ten British families are eligible to claim Working Tax Credits in some form. That’s a lot of potentially unappreciative people.

It is true that some see it as more beneficial, financially, not to ameliorate their economic situation; however various steps have been made to limit this problem. For example, if a person or family work less than 16 hours per week, they may be eligible for support in the form of Jobseekers Allowance. But this is no free ride. If a person does not employ the time and support provided by the benefits agency toward finding a new job, JSA payments start being reduced.

This issue also forgets the broader structures relating to impoverishment: poor education, social exclusion, poor access to resources, etc. In my time with social services, I have found that the majority of families and parents eagerly try to better their lives due to the limitations and stigma associated with poverty and dependency. Social workers follow the progress of families and try to direct them toward avenues that better and restore their lives. The support we give is not just financial, which forms only a small part. We also help establish basic foundations through training courses, parenting programmes and counselling, to name due a few options.

Mr. Hales shows not just an old and bigoted view, but it is also one of generalisation and exaggeration. Perhaps he’s still stuck in an old, Conservative world of nuclear, evangelical families.

Next time I receive a call from a parent in tears because that they can not afford food for their children, I shall tell them not that we can offer short-term financial support and enrol the parents on a skills programme to improve employment eligibility, but that they should have thought about the consequences before having children, and that there’s nothing we can do. There is a shortage of houses after all.