Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lord Kerslake
Lord Kerslake
My Lords, I will speak briefly. I welcome the movement by the Minister on this issue, and there has been significant movement during the Bill’s passage through this House, which is entirely to be accepted gratefully. However, I remain fundamentally concerned about the pay-to-stay policy, which is effectively a form of tax collection but done by people who are not tax collectors. The income comes back to the Chancellor and is not reinvested in housing.
It is important to be clear that that the people in question are not on high incomes. Given where the thresholds are, we are talking, in London, about people such as teaching assistants and caretakers, and household incomes, not individual incomes. We will catch a lot of ordinary people on fairly ordinary incomes through this change. That is why I moved the amendment—to get the threshold up—and why I would have supported the amendment to keep the taper at 10p in the pound for those at the lower rate. It is important to be aware that the bulk of the people who will be caught by pay to stay are in the £10,000 bracket. Those who earn over £60,000 number fewer than 40,000.
Therefore, through this measure we are effectively taxing households on slightly higher incomes. I believe strongly that it will be very difficult to implement and that it will cost more than it raises in income in many places. That said, I want to finish on a positive note: there has been movement, so I entirely support my noble friend Lord Best’s decision not to move his amendment.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
My Lords, I was going to speak passionately in favour of Motions F1 and H1. There is now no need to do so and I am delighted about that. I very much welcome the taper of 15%, which my colleague and I discussed yesterday with the Minister, but at that stage she was unable to commit to it. I am really pleased that there has been some movement on that. I also very much welcome the move towards accepting that the income limits will be raised in line with the consumer prices index. That is only right, given that everything else in life increases, such as pensions and the minimum and living wages. Therefore this should also increase.
However, I am still somewhat concerned about the costs of administering the so-called pay-to-stay policy. There are costs involved in assessing when tenants have reached the threshold, in assessing how much the tenant should pay in additional rent as they move towards the full market rent, and in collecting this rent. During our discussions with the Minister and her officials this week on the amendment on carbon-compliant homes there was much reference on their part to the cost-effectiveness of carbon compliance and the cost-benefit of such a policy. So we are somewhat surprised to find that there has been no such cost-benefit analysis of the implementation of the high-income tenant policy. There is some concern that the amount collected by the increased rents is likely to be outweighed by the costs involved in implementing the policy. I believe that this House should be concerned about this. Having said that, I welcome the movement by the Minister and the Government on these amendments.
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lord Kerslake
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 3 in my name, and to Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. I remind the House of my declaration in the Register of Lords’ Interests as a district councillor, a vice-president of the LGA and chair of the National Community Land Trust Network.
We had long discussions and deliberations in Committee on not only the replacement of the right-to-buy homes sold to tenants but the thorny issue of the sale of high-value local authority housing. I will not rehearse in depth here the arguments about local authorities and their housing needs assessments and local plans, and about the need to have the homes that residents require now and into the future in the areas in which they live, work and educate their children. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to one-to-one replacement outside London. It is essential that the higher-value homes that are sold off to fund both the starter home discount and those sold under the right-to-buy extension are replaced in the same area, if at all possible. There will be occasions when this will not be possible or when the housing needs assessment does not indicate that replacements are needed but, wherever possible, they should be in the same area. There is very real concern that, in some areas, homes will be sold by housing associations in one area of the country and that replacements will be in another area completely, thus depriving one area of a much-needed asset. That is a very real threat, as housing associations merge to create larger organisations that cover a wide area of the country.
I tabled Amendment 3 to limit the negative impact of homes being replaced in the wrong area, by restricting replacements to the local plan areas. Most local plans have boundaries contiguous with the local authority boundaries, but this is not the case everywhere. Allowing local plan areas rather than local authority boundaries to be the limiting factor will, I hope, provide the flexibility to ensure a steady supply of homes for those who most need them. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to look at exclusions for rural areas besides AONBs and national parks.
On Amendment 6, I support the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. It is essential that local authorities—whose budgets have been reduced year on year for some considerable time—are not expected to sell off their high-value homes and hand over the entire receipts to the Secretary of State. Local authorities should be able to fund the replacement homes from the proceeds of the sales less administrative costs, before making the necessary transfer of resources to the Secretary of State. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government’s intention with this Bill is not just to ensure an increased and steady supply of homes that are desperately needed, but to contribute to the Government’s budget deficit. When responding on 18 April to the debate on Clause 78, as it was then, on the introduction of mandatory rents for high-income local authority tenants, the Minister said:
“We will not be allowing local authorities to retain any money raised, however. The money has been identified as a contribution to reducing the national deficit and, on that basis, it must come back to government”.—[Official Report, 18/4/16; col. 452.]
While sympathising with the Government on their need to reduce the budget deficit, I am not prepared for this to happen at the expense of providing homes identified by local authorities as needed to accommodate residents in their areas. If the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, wishes to divide the House on this issue, I will support him.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 6, and I declare my interests as chair of Peabody and president of the Local Government Association. My other interests are listed in the register.
This is an amendment that, until 5 pm last night, I did not expect to be speaking to. We have, I fear, travelled a long way on this issue only to end up back at the same place. Amendment 6, as now drafted, formed part of my Amendment 64A, moved on Report on 13 April. It concerns the replacement of council house stock forced to be sold to fund the extension of the right-to-buy discounts to housing associations. The first part of that amendment, the so-called one-for-one provision, was agreed to be taken on by the Minister as drafted. This has been honoured and is reflected in government Amendment 2. I am grateful to the Minister for acting on it. The amendment is a crucial change and ensures that the Government’s manifesto commitment that every affordable property sold outside London would be replaced by at least one other affordable property is on the face of the Bill. I welcome that.
The second part of my amendment, however, was equally crucial. It provided that where a local authority so wished and could demonstrate need, it would be able to retain from the council house sale receipts the funding necessary to reprovide a house of a similar type to the one it had sold. So if a social-rented family house has been sold to fund the government levy, and there is a desperate need for such housing in its area, the council could retain the funding needed to build a new social-rented house. It would be its choice and a case would have to be made, but if it made the case the funding would be there. On this issue the Minister replied constructively, recognising the different needs of different areas. She said:
“I totally agree that in our dialogue with local communities, local authorities should be empowered to make the case for the right balance of housing in their area, and that there should be a strong expectation that the Government will listen”.
She went on to say,
“I am very happy to work with the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, to give local authorities with particular … needs in their areas the opportunity to reach bespoke agreements with the Government about the delivery of different types of new homes in their areas”.—[Official Report, 13/4/16; col. 304.]
In the light of these assurances, I withdrew my amendment.
Since 21 April, constructive discussions have taken place with Ministers and their officials on the drafting of a new amendment. This discussion has taken place with the close involvement of the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Porter. As at lunchtime yesterday, I understood that we had reached agreement on the form of words for such an amendment. Sadly, when the amendments came through at 5 pm last night, that crucial part of the amendment was missing. In the circumstances, I felt that I had no option but to resubmit my original amendment, and I am enormously grateful to the Table Office for allowing me the time to do this beyond the normal time limit.
I should say at once that the Minister has acted with great integrity on this matter, as indeed she has on the whole of the Bill. The Secretary of State, Greg Clark, has been equally open and responsive, and I recognise that the time between Report and Third Reading has been short. I also suspect that the responsibility for this turn of events lies elsewhere in government. However, the simple fact is that we have only half an amendment from the Government, with the crucial issues of funding, local need and like-for-like replacement—not just one-for-one—not covered. I fear that this just will not do. It adds to what has been a difficult journey for the Bill in this House. What may look like a technical amendment goes to the heart of the concerns of local authorities and their communities about one of the most contentious parts of the Bill: the forced sale of higher-value properties, typically the larger properties in the most sought-after areas, to fund large discounts for housing association tenants with the wherewithal to buy. Local government is paying for a central government policy. Those most in need are denied the opportunity of a new home to rent when it becomes vacant. The only saving grace for local authorities was the prospect of replacement funding.
With the definition of affordable housing now so widely drawn, the Bill needs to provide specifically for the opportunity for new rented accommodation, affordable to those on low incomes. This is doubly so given the uncertainty as to whether the sums involved here actually add up. This issue was of such importance that the leaders of all the political parties at the Local Government Association wrote a letter to the Guardian, expressing their concern and supporting my original amendment. It is essential that this is addressed in the Bill and not through general ministerial assurances, welcome though those are.
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lord Kerslake
Lord Kerslake
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 76 and to Amendment 73, which I support. I set out my concerns about pay to stay in the debate on the previous grouping, so on this occasion I will keep my remarks fairly short. I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Best, said about the taper, so I shall focus particularly on the threshold.
For the reasons that I have already spoken about, these proposals catch not just households on high incomes but those on average incomes. They may be in the higher group in relation to social rented properties but, as households, they cannot in any sense be described as high income in relation to the population as a whole. This is a crucial point. It is not about high-income households in any meaningful sense, so to have any kind of fairness in the system, we need to raise the thresholds from those proposed and keep the taper low. It is not a matter of either/or; both are necessary.
My amendment proposes increasing the thresholds that have just been announced by the Minister by some £9,000. That would make them £40,000 outside London and £50,000 inside London, and the amendment would put those thresholds in the Bill. That was one of the options referred to in the Government’s own impact assessment, so it must have been under consideration. It is in fact lower than the previously proposed threshold of £60,000 agreed by the coalition Government. I think that there is a case for the threshold to be at least £60,000 in London, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, but, in the spirit of trying to reach a compromise, I have aimed to meet the Government half way on this—hence the recommended thresholds in the amendment.
The effects of raising the thresholds would be twofold. First, it would substantially reduce the number of people caught up in these proposals. There is a clustering of people around the £30,000 to £40,000 income level, so raising the thresholds would reduce the numbers to perhaps as low as 50,000 compared with 350,000. Secondly, it would start at the income level of people, and households in particular, in the top 20% of incomes, not in the top 50%, as is currently proposed, so it would affect people on genuinely high incomes compared with what is proposed now. I think that by any reasonable reckoning having the thresholds at the levels that I propose would be a fairer starting point, and a taper of 10p in the pound would be much fairer. Taking on board these amendments would go a long way to making what I think is a very poor piece of legislation a little fairer and a little more workable.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 73 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Beecham and Lord Kerslake, to which I have added my name. I shall speak also to Amendment 77 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Foster of Bath.
The pay-to-stay policy has caused widespread concern among hard-working couples and families who are struggling to make ends meet and do not consider themselves to be high earners. It is essential that we give these people some sort of peace of mind that they will be able to afford to pay their rent, continue in their jobs and finish the education of their children. Raising the threshold of the income level at which people start to pay a higher rent to £40,000 outside London and £60,000 inside, at the same time as introducing a taper of 10p in the pound, would go some considerable way towards achieving that. Such a taper would assist couples and families with their budgeting and with planning to work towards paying market rents. In my opinion, 20p in the pound is too harsh. The discrepancy between a high earner for tax purposes and a high earner in terms of paying rent is stark, and the Government need to acknowledge that this is illogical.
Both amendments are crucial to the implementation of the Government’s pay-to-stay policy, to ensuring that tenants are given some level of security and that the threat of eviction is not continually hanging over their heads. I agree with the comments that have been made by the previous speakers.
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lord Kerslake(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
My Lords, I shall also support Amendment 64A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. I realise I am in the way of having the debate about Amendment 64A, on which I hope the Minister wishes to make a statement. However, I will continue.
For the Secretary of State to require local authorities to hand over money on the basis of the number of high or higher-value properties that may become vacant in any given year is, to me, iniquitous. However, I accept that a formula has been agreed with local authorities, which will be based on the assumed number of high or higher-value properties that will become vacant in any given year. In whichever way the formula is calculated, local authorities will be required to pay to the Secretary of State a sum of money that will cover the cost of the 20% discount on the starter homes and the right-to-buy scheme. In the current economic climate, local authorities do not have spare capital at their disposal and have never done so. They are particularly good at making every pound count for the benefit of their residents. The vast majority will therefore have to sell assets of some sort to fund the Government’s levy. The sale of capital assets involves costs and it is only logical for local authorities not to be out of pocket as a result of this measure.
Amendment 55 would allow local authorities to replace on a one-for-one basis with affordable homes in the same area. I refer your Lordships to the Conservatives’ press release of 14 April 2015, which gave details of how the right to buy will be funded. We have had discussions about this. The sale of high-value council homes is referred to in the last paragraph and I will bore your Lordships by reading it. It said:
“A Conservative government will legislate to require local authorities to manage their housing assets more efficiently, by selling off expensive properties—only when they become vacant—which will then be replaced with normal affordable housing. Local authority properties that rank among the most expensive third of all properties of that type in their area—including private housing—will be sold off and replaced with new affordable housing on a one for one basis. But this will only happen as they fall vacant. Nobody will be forced to move”.
I thank the Minister for her amendments so far and look forward to what she has to say further on this issue. In the mean time, I beg to move.
Lord Kerslake
My Lords, I first declare my interests as chair of Peabody and president of the Local Government Association. The purpose of Amendment 64A, which I have tabled, is to do two things. First, it is to put one-for-one replacements in the Bill so this issue is beyond doubt. Given that this was quite clearly in the manifesto, it seemed right and proper that it should be in the Bill. The second part of the amendment was to give the opportunity for a local authority, where it could demonstrate the need, to put the case to government and seek their agreement for a like-for-like policy—that is, the replacement of a social rented property with a social rented property. So there are two parts to this, which I would call one-for-one and like-for-like. They are drafted very differently to allow for local flexibility and initiative.
As has already been made clear today, the Minister has signalled a willingness to compromise on the issues involved in my amendment. She will say more about this in a minute and I do not wish to steal her thunder but, having had a chance to have an informal conversation with her, I am very grateful to her and the Secretary of State for their willingness to listen genuinely to the concerns of this House and those affected outside, and to respond to these concerns. It reflects well on them both and I am grateful for it.
It is worth rehearsing briefly why this part of the Bill has caused such concern. The first and most significant concern has been that of basic fairness. Local government is being expected to foot the bill for a central government policy: to extend the right to buy to housing associations. This is a central government policy funded by local government. To do this authorities are having to sell off, as we now know, higher-value properties as they become vacant, thus reducing the opportunities for those who are in most need. As the letter to the Guardian from the four LGA leaders put it,
“selling council homes will hamper councils’ ability to invest in new affordable council housing”,
and it is,
“likely to have the unintended consequence of increasing homelessness and pushing more families into the more expensive private rented sector”.
That is the view of all the parties in the Local Government Association. In short, those who are better off and have the means to purchase their housing association property will gain a large cash discount. Those on the lowest incomes who are in most need of housing will lose out. That is a basic issue of fairness that cannot be avoided in this proposal.
The second major concern, which we have debated a lot this afternoon, is that the proposal as previously drafted was highly centralised and “one size fits all” in its effect. As we have already heard, we do not have the proposed formula for top-slicing local authority receipts, which will come later. However, as the Minister expressed very well, in some areas there was the prospect under the previous construction that the social housing in those areas would, over time, be effectively wiped out, utterly changing their character and working completely against locally assessed need.
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lord Kerslake
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
In moving Amendment 6, I shall speak very strongly in support of the other amendments in this group. While the Government’s aim to provide starter homes for young people is to be commended, it should not be seen as the only route for people to access homes and accommodation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, said and as was said in Committee, local authorities up and down the country continually update their housing requirements and are able to assess the local need for all types of social and affordable housing. There must therefore be a requirement for them to provide other forms of homes outside the starter homes programme, which they are willing and able to do.
A large of number of residents will require homes to rent, as their incomes and circumstances will preclude their buying a home of their own regardless of their desire to do so. The needs of such residents should be met by local authorities, which are keen to fulfil their housing function in this direction.
Alternative social and affordable housing will also include shared ownership—as has been said—and shared equity schemes, as well as social rented homes. For local authorities to focus entirely on the starter homes programme will leave a large number of families, couples and single people without any means to access a home. It is a basic right for every individual to have a home that is fit for purpose so that they may access employment and ensure that their children are able regularly to attend school.
Having carried out their housing needs surveys, English planning authorities should grant permission for residential developments only where their survey indicates a need and a demand for such housing. This could include starter homes but not to the exclusion of other forms of affordable housing. I look forward to the Minister’s response on this important matter and I beg to move.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 8 and 9 and in doing so declare my interests as president of the Local Government Association and chair of Peabody.
The amendments form part of a series of amendments intended to make the Bill fairer, more localist and more workable, while respecting the manifesto commitments made by the Conservative Party during the general election last May. The specific purpose of Amendment 8 and the consequential Amendment 9—I would argue that it is consequential—is to place the responsibility for determining the proportion of starter homes in any particular development where it should properly lie: with the local planning authority.
We discussed at length during the Committee stage of this Bill, and indeed today, how starter homes as an initiative has moved from being an interesting and positive new way to provide additional supply of new housing to effectively replacing affordable rented housing in new developments, despite the fact that starter homes will serve a very different group of people, being available only to those on middle or higher incomes in those areas where housing is in high demand. Shelter has calculated, for example, that 98% of families who are on the Chancellor’s national living wage would not be able to afford a starter home.
In Committee, we also learned that there is not one housing market in this country but many, each with their own different needs and issues. It is for this very reason that we require each local authority to consider carefully its local housing needs and draw up a local plan to meet them. The Bill, however, gives the Secretary of State the power to prevent the approval of individual planning applications unless they have met the specified requirement for starter homes. It is hard to think of a more overbearing and centralising action that the Government could have taken on something that should so clearly be a matter for local decision. So far as I am aware, it is also completely without precedent. I cannot establish any previous Government who have sought to specify the types and tenures of housing in individual planning applications in this way.
On 23 March, just prior to the Easter Recess, the department issued a technical consultation document on starter homes. It proposed a single starter homes percentage of 20%, with exceptions only for very small sites and where the viability of the scheme was in question. The Government’s consultation document does not give an estimate of how many affordable rented houses this would displace but both the Local Government Association and Shelter believe this to be significant. Indeed, the department’s own numbers estimate that, in cash terms, 91% of affordable housing contributions on an average site will be redirected to starter homes.
I have no doubt that a figure of 20% starter homes will be right for some parts of the country, but I am equally clear that for many others it will not. There is a risk that further delays will be added to the planning process as local authorities struggle in individual applications to reconcile this top-down requirement with what they know is right for their own area. Amendment 8 leaves the choice with individual local authorities but makes clear that the local authority must have regard to the provision of starter homes when it comes to make its decision. This, taken with the general duty to promote starter homes that is already in Clause 3(1), will provide more than sufficient onus on local authorities to take forward the Government’s intentions. There is enough leverage already in the Bill. We must surely be able to trust local authorities to make the right decisions based on their own local needs and circumstances.
In other parts of the debate in Committee—for example, on the appropriate size of new housing—Ministers were clear in their view that local authorities are best placed to understand and decide what is required locally. This must surely be the case for type and tenure; otherwise, we are effectively in this Bill going for “pick and mix” localism.
Today the four leaders of the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and independent groups of the Local Government Association took the unusual step of writing a joint letter to the Guardian about the Bill. In it they say the following:
“Current proposals for starter homes carry a risk that a crucial supply of new affordable rented homes will be displaced, and despite 20% discounts they will still be out of reach for the majority of people in need of an affordable home. Councils support measures to boost home ownership, and starter homes are one of the ways this can be achieved, but we are also urging peers to back amendments allowing councils to decide how many starter homes, alongside affordable rented homes, are on each development to ensure they meet the needs identified by councils with their communities”.
The letter ends:
“New homes are badly needed and councils are keen to build them. The Local Government Association believes we will only see a genuine end to our housing crisis if we are able to get on with the job”.
Quite so.
I hope, even at this late stage, that the Government will see fit to accept this amendment.
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lord Kerslake
Lord Kerslake
The noble Lord makes a very powerful point. With any new system—or indeed with very mature systems, such as housing benefit—there are huge risks of error and cost in correcting it. I have run a housing benefit system and know just how easy it is to run into difficulties with it. I also know how costly it is to run because of the complexity of individual circumstances. We are here creating a whole new parallel system of assessment that sits alongside those for universal credit, housing benefit and so on. It will be new, and we will not establish a lot of the detail until we have run it. That, by the way, is why I still feel strongly that a pilot to test the operation of the system would be very valuable, not least because it would tell us how much cost is involved and what are the potential error rates.
It is essential, first, that we recognise that this may not be worth doing nationally, and certainly not locally. Secondly, we must give comfort in the Bill to local authorities that their costs will be covered. Thirdly, we must recognise that if this is to be a genuinely fair system, it will come with complexity and significant cost.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 75A, to which my noble friend Lord Stoneham has added his name, and Amendment 81A, to which I have added my name. Earlier, we debated at great length the cost to local authorities of administering pay to stay. The system appears disproportionately bureaucratic and, as we are uncertain how implementation will work, it will be extremely costly to sort out.
Housing, revenue and benefits officers are already working to full capacity. I have yet to ask the officers on my council just how many more of them they think they will need to administer this system. As we have heard, the absence of any detail means that no one can be sure that the additional rental income will cover the cost of administration. Local authorities should not be out of pocket. There is very little detail on the scheme and no transparency, and it seems that the Government are just transferring costs to local authorities.
On market rents, we have heard that there will be a flat rate of income. When tenants reach that rate, they will be assessed to pay market rents on a sliding scale. However, we have not heard anything about whether the taper will stop at a lower or higher level of rent. Will the market rent be assessed local authority by local authority, or will it be a flat rate? The Secretary of State has yet to tell us. Will tenants paying additional rent on the taper in the north stop paying at a lower level than those in the south-east, where the taper may carry on for some time, because market rents are much higher?
It is not surprising that local authorities are gaining the impression that the Government do not value them or the contribution that they make to their areas. I am very disappointed that we have so little detail at this stage on this very important clause, and I support the amendments.
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lord Kerslake
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I will speak specifically to Amendments 47 and 48C. I will not be anything like as eloquent as the noble Lord, Lord Best, but I will do my best.
I believe that the Government’s concentration on starter homes to the exclusion of other tenures is extremely damaging to the housing market and to the aspirations of those looking for a home of any sort. There are those, as we have heard, who will never be able to afford or be eligible for the Government’s starter home programme. There are those who struggle to pay market rents, never mind repayments on a mortgage, and those who will be excluded from renting from a private landlord due to the rents being levied. These people are not to be cast aside as though they are of no importance. Each and every one of them deserves the dignity and security of a decent home in which to live and bring up their children.
Crisis has produced a brief that indicates that starter homes, as we have heard, will primarily help couples without children and on average or above-average salaries. Starter homes will be inaccessible to families on or below the national living wage in all but 2% of council areas. There are only six local authority areas where single people on an average wage or less will be able to afford a starter home. By requiring councils to prioritise starter homes for higher earners, the Bill reduces the scope of local authorities to meet the full range of housing requirements that councils have identified through their planning processes. Thus, the housing needs of low-income groups will go unmet and homelessness is likely to increase.
It is essential that local authorities can retain their flexibility to provide a full range of housing tenures and requirements, including social and affordable housing, to meet the needs of their residents. Starter homes do not do this. The Government should accept this and allow councils to make provision to meet the gap in the market that the starter home policy will create. This is essential to a buoyant housing market in the country and to meet the needs of those at the lower end of the income spectrum.
On Amendment 48C, local authorities do not carry out their planning processes and housing functions in the dark. They do not produce a map and, with a blindfold on, attempt to pin the tail on the donkey, as we did when we were children at birthday parties. No, they have detailed information which they have gathered from officers, residents, parish councils, surveys, census figures, voluntary organisations, developers, Age UK, Citizens Advice and so on. All this assists them to build up a picture of what housing is needed and where. They are able to calculate what is viable in which location and what is not.
It is all very well for the Secretary of State to require from on high that a starter home requirement must be met, but if there is no need for starter homes in a particular area but homes of a very different nature, this would seem to be a false requirement. Surely it is for local authorities using the information they have collected through their local planning processes to determine what is needed to prevent homelessness and provide for their residents in any given area. That is what their councillors have been elected to take responsibility for and which they have a burning desire to fulfil. Local authorities must be allowed to do just what it says on the tin—decide locally what is needed for their local communities.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, I speak in favour of the amendments in this group—in particular Amendment 48C in my name and Amendments 48A and 48F which I have supported. This group of amendments addresses two issues which concern me most about this section of the Bill. The first is that starter homes will come ahead of and instead of affordable rented accommodation. There is no doubt about that in the way this will play out. Secondly, the Government will dictate to a level I have never seen before the proportion of starter homes that are built, down to individual schemes. This is quite extraordinary.
The Bill gives local authorities a duty to promote starter homes. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, this is a manifesto policy. I acknowledge and accept that point, but it gives them an absolute duty. It does not say, “Promote starter homes as part of your wider housing plans”. Had it said that, we would now be in a different conversation. It simply says, “You will promote starter homes”. It does not say anything about any other tenure. So, yes, the manifesto does say that the Government can ask and indeed require local authorities to promote starter homes, but they should be asked to do it in the context of their primary role, which is to assess housing need and provide for it. That is the first point I really care about in this Bill.
The second point, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, has made very clear, is that we have now a well-established process through the NPPF of housing market assessment followed by a local plan and the identification of the necessary land. It is not an easy process. Local authorities go through a lot of heart-searching before they come up with their local plan. Crucially, they think about the local needs in their area before they agree that plan. What we have here is the superimposition of a government view about one tenure or even one product—it is not even a tenure—ahead of other products. It makes much more sense, as the amendment seeks to put forward, that they consider their local plan and have a duty to promote starter homes but that they do it in the context of a plan that they have already developed and are seeking to promote. If starter homes are such a popular and well-regarded product, it would be very surprising if local authorities do not rush to put it in.
I touched earlier on the requirement for starter homes in individual applications. One thing we do know is that we have massively different housing markets in this country. I will say a few words about, and declare my interest in, the London Housing Commission in a minute. Where housing markets can vary literally over two or three miles, never mind between the north and south of the country, having the Secretary of State judging the proportion of housing that needs to be starter homes in each application before that application is approved is asking for trouble. The one thing that we can be sure of is that he will get the number wrong for some part of the country. He may get it wrong for every part of the country, but he will definitely not get it right everywhere. It is in many ways the worst kind of centralism.