Garden Cities
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Best
Baroness Hanham
My noble friend never misses an opportunity to mention allotments. Of course, if allotments were proposed—and they could be—within these plans, I am sure they would be considered by the local authority. In any case, as my noble friend knows, no allotment ground can be vacated without the Secretary of State’s permission.
Lord Best
Does the Minister agree that some major and new settlements can take place within urban areas, incorporating all the good principles that she has mentioned—the Olympic Village being one such example and, now, even the big King’s Cross redevelopment? Will plenty of encouragement be given in any prospectus that comes out for urban-based new settlements?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I readily accept what the noble Lord has said. Housing is not going to be confined to new areas. It will of course take place in conjunction with cities or towns, and indeed I think that Cranbrook and Bicester would fill those requirements. I totally agree with the noble Lord on that point.
Housing: New Housebuilding
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Best
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, an affordable home is one that in previous circumstances my noble friend might have known as social housing. It is provided by social landlords in the form of local councils or housing associations.
Lord Best
My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us whether there is more news to come from the Chancellor or from her department on the subject of local authorities being able once more to build council housing, preferably retirement housing? Building bungalows and flats for older people would release some of their family housing.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Best(11 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I apologise. I always manage to do this once, sometimes more than once. Perhaps we can rest a moment before we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Best.
Amendment 25, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, which I have noted but which I shall say more about, requires local authorities to have regard to regulations setting out how viability will be assessed. Those regulations are to be subject to consultation and the affirmative procedure. I hear what the noble Lord says about returning to this at Third Reading, but in the mean time it might be helpful if I just go through where we are.
The draft viability guidance has been circulated to assist the House’s understanding of how developers, local authorities and the Planning Inspectorate will approach the new process. It is an early draft, and we intend to discuss it further with professional bodies and interested groups before a final version is issued on Royal Assent.
Noble Lords will see that the basic principle of the guidance is that it works with existing industry practice on assessment of viability. It strongly encourages developers to use the same methodology and basic assumptions as in their original assessment and to focus on what has changed. A number of technical questions have been raised on the draft viability guidance. If it would be helpful to noble Lords, I am happy to have a meeting between now and Third Reading to hear views and see whether we can resolve, or at least discuss, some of the issues.
There is a good deal of technical information in the draft guidance, which needs to be kept under review. Using secondary legislation would not allow the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances and data that statutory guidance offers.
Noble Lords will recall that the legislation for the community infrastructure levy, introduced under the previous Government, makes provision for statutory guidance. That covers the assessment of viability for the purposes of setting the levy. It is a model that allows for the required flexibility and is one that we intend to follow.
I hope that, with that reassurance, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment, even if only for the moment.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for that debate. The noble Lord, Lord Best, explained clearly that his amendments are aimed at ensuring that development happens. We all want to ensure that happens, as there is otherwise no purpose in this clause. I understand the desire that, in return for an adjusted affordable housing obligation won at appeal, a developer should get on and build. Planning consent is permission to build; it is not a requirement to build. The purpose of this clause is to give developers an opportunity to build, allowing them to review schemes against prevailing market conditions and secure a viable affordable housing agreement. We should remember that without this clause many housing sites will not come forward at all, which is not what we want. Of course, having put in place a revised agreement, we want developers to build, and that is the purpose of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best.
Clause 6 places a three-year time limit on modified obligations made on appeal. If the development is not completed within three years, which is the other side of the coin that the noble Lord referred to—he was talking about commencement while I am talking about completion—the original affordable housing requirement will apply to those parts of the scheme which have not been commenced, so there is a difficulty for the developer in that. Developers are incentivised to build out as much of their scheme as possible within those three years. It will not be sufficient to commence one part of the development to secure the revised affordable housing obligation for the whole scheme.
For example, on a scheme of 100 homes, if 50 units are completed at the end of the three years and the remaining 50 are not commenced, the appeal decisions would require that the original obligation would apply to the remaining 50—so we would go back to 100. If developers are concerned about the viability of their scheme at the end of the three years, they can seek to modify the agreement again. This could be done through voluntary renegotiation or by making a new application under this process.
We believe that the clause ensures that we incentivise build-out and completion. Local authorities are not bound by a three-year decision, but we are clear in our draft guidance that they can follow similar time limits prescribed for appeal decisions. We believe that this decision is best made locally. Where the matter has gone to the planning inspectors, the local authority can of course put its own evidence to the Planning Inspectorate, which could include evidence on commencement of the development. That could become part of the modified planning obligation if the planning inspectors agree to it.
I hope that the noble Lord will take some comfort from our being aware that local authorities have a wide range of tools and powers to encourage development. Those may be through the way they use the Section 106 agreements flexibly or in the way that they support development through investment in infrastructure or the use of land assets. We are aware of local authorities which have introduced clawback agreements to incentivise developments and we understand that those may be appropriate in some circumstances.
More specifically on Amendment 31, which prescribes a six-month commencement for appeal decisions, I said in Committee that I thought setting a six-month period in primary legislation was too prescriptive. I am particularly concerned that placing a six-month limit to commence development will allow little time for developers to get on site—this is the other side of the coin that we have just been talking about. Not all schemes will be ready to go when they are renegotiated. Regeneration schemes where land is in multiple ownership or where planning conditions need to be met before development can commence could be excluded from this process by the six-month limit. Sites where significant work, such as decontamination, needs to be done to prepare the site for development could be excluded. We want to ensure that we deliver as many homes as possible through this measure, not through an overly prescriptive approach, which could be counterproductive and end up with these measures having no effect.
In Amendment 30, the noble Lord, Lord Best, proposes to require the Planning Inspectorate to introduce a clawback in appeal cases whereby the local authority receives increased funds for affordable housing if the market rises. I oppose this amendment because it requires the Planning Inspectorate to make provision for a clawback agreement, which would impose a requirement that will not be appropriate in all cases. I am also concerned that this amendment might have unintended consequences. In cases where a variable agreement would be onerous and unnecessary, the inclusion of the amendment could discourage developers from appealing. We need developers to engage in this process and ensure they can secure viable agreements and we can then secure the affordable housing.
I will now turn to the new clause on redefining commencement. The definition of commencement and material operation serves a wide range of purposes in planning law. It triggers the payment of community infrastructure levy and Section 106 revenues. Perhaps most importantly, it is used by local authorities to establish whether a development needs planning permission and can form the basis of enforcement action if a material operation has taken place without permission. In short, the amendment would have far-reaching and fundamental consequences that go far beyond its intention, which is to prevent developers from doing a minimal amount of work lawfully to implement a planning permission. The noble Lord spelled that out quite clearly.
Changing the commencement threshold in the way envisaged would not have a substantial effect on the behaviour of developers. Any new definition of commencement would simply create a new minimum threshold for such developers to build to. The additional costs for a developer in doing so would be unlikely to be significant in the context of an overall construction budget. Furthermore, the complexity of the threshold proposed would result in uncertainty and confusion that would affect all parties involved in the planning process, including local authorities. As the definition of development is a highly contested part of planning law, it would be likely to result in a significant rise in legal challenges as the courts interpreted the new definition. Any legal definition of commencement should be exactly that: the point at which a development is commenced. It would be counterfactual at best to say in legislation that a building project where the foundations or roads are 49% complete or where only 99% of the pipes have been connected has somehow not legally begun.
In short, while I recognise the problem, this is not the right solution. It would do very little to address the problem, while it would have wide-ranging consequences for other areas of planning practice and have a very significant adverse impact on local authorities, developers and third parties. There is already a power available for a local planning authority to serve a completion notice to deal with uncompleted development. However, a far more productive approach would be to address the underlying reasons for developers delaying their schemes. The Government recognise the importance of this through a number of initiatives, such as the £570 million Get Britain Building fund to unlock stalled sites.
I hope that with these comments the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Best
My Lords, I am very grateful for the debate that this has stimulated and for the interventions from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. We have explored an issue and taken it a little bit further than anyone has before in these public fora. These ways of trying to persuade the developer to start building—which is what we are all about—are quite difficult, and it is quite messy to concentrate on defining where commencement really lies. Concentrating on completions of developments which are, obviously, at a later date than my six months for a start, sounds a much improved way of looking at this. I had not appreciated—and I am not sure if others had—that it will be possible for the Planning Inspectorate to place conditions relating to a timescale and a definition of starting on more than simply the reduction in the amount of affordable housing. The assumption has been that it is the reduction in affordable housing that the planning inspector can talk about, and these other, more sophisticated, aspects of getting things going have been beyond the remit of the Planning Inspectorate when these appeals come forward. We are hearing tonight that the planning inspector could, in a way, substitute for the negotiation that has failed at the local authority and developer end. These cases have gone forward only because earlier negotiations have failed. It could be that the planning inspector could substitute for that and come up with a set of requirements that go with the consent to drop the amount of affordable housing.
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining these issues in more depth. I will go away and think about them and hope that, within that explanation, there are the seeds of hope.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I need to answer this. The inspector will have the power to say that these developments have got to be completed within three years.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Best(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I would be very happy to write to the noble Lord, but my feeling is that, if the local authority owns the land and thereby gives it without cost to the developer, by definition everything ought to be lower cost and it ought to be able to have some more control over it. I think this justifies a further look and I will come back to the noble Lord.
Lord Best
My Lords, I am deeply grateful to all noble Lords who have joined in this debate. By covering a lot of the ground on this now, we have saved time later. I will respond briefly to some of the key points made. With regard to the powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, I have been discussing these things with Housing Ministers and Planning Ministers for longer than I care to remember; it was the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave—then William Waldegrave, the Planning Minister—who first introduced the idea of planning gain paying for new housing development. I remember those conversations. It started in Docklands, where there was a need for local people to see something for themselves when lots of new housing was being built that was much more expensive than they could afford; from that came this way of paying for affordable housing for a range of people.
Perhaps it would be better if one simply taxed more deeply the landowners, the house builders and the occupiers, and put the money in a pot to pay for affordable housing, but it would not then be produced in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was commending—on sites that are now a mix of owner-occupiers and people who are renting or in shared ownership, which are socially very valuable. In a way, the way in which planning gain operates is a tax, and there are really only three people who can pay it. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, suggests, the purchaser—who may be a first-time buyer—will actually be charged what the market can bear and the market is determined by the 85% of properties that change hands in the second-hand market rather than those that are built new. The developer can charge only what the market will bear, and the purchaser will look at other properties as well. The purchaser is unlikely to see their price increase for that reason.
The house builder themselves cannot operate at a loss—they would just not be in business at all—so they cannot absorb all the cost of this tax themselves. It is, I think, the third party, the landowner, where the tax finally lands, because there is a very wide variation in the value of land for agricultural or other purposes and land for development, and that is where the tax really has been drawn over the years. That system has worked pretty well.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, makes the point that this could be a double bad deal for local communities unless we get some changes. The noble Lord, Lord Burnett, noted that local authorities already renegotiated a lot of deals, and he approves of the idea of a quid pro quo now if we are to tamper with the Section 106 agreements.
Baroness Hanham
That is because we are concentrating here only on affordable housing. Putting this in primary legislation means that the provisions come into effect immediately after Royal Assent and we do not have to spend time working out regulations. These provisions are in primary legislation because this is an important aspect of getting sites unlocked.
Lord Best
My Lords, this has been an important debate. My amendment and some of the others in the group are about there being a cut-off point for the provisions in Clause 6. We know that the Government’s target is, as it should be, agreements made before the peak of the market back in April 2010. I take the point that economic uncertainty—the possibility of things getting worse—prevails; however, one would hope that developers will not enter into agreements from now on without recognising the dangers that they can get into.
My housing association is trying to acquire sites even as we speak, and we keep being outbid by people who we think are paying ridiculous prices for the land. They are entering into Section 106 agreements with their local authorities. It would not be fair on those who are playing the game properly if, later, those who go out and pay far more than they should for a site come back and say, “Sorry, the scheme is not viable with this Section 106. Can we have it reduced?”. That is not a fair way to operate and I think that the Government accept that. I take comfort from the fact that on Report we will hear more about this matter. Therefore, at this stage, I am delighted to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Best
My Lords, Amendment 55B in this group, which is in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord McKenzie, would enable the planning inspector to rule, after looking at the situation, that the level of affordable housing should be increased, rather than only being able to decide that the affordable housing component must be reduced. Without this amendment, the housebuilders have a one-way bet. They cannot lose by going to appeal, and they might win. This is a recipe for developers to simply “have a go”. The amendment would ensure that there are appeals only where a robust and well evidenced case can be made for a reduction, so it should deter frivolous and unsupported applications.
Baroness Hanham
The noble Lord, Lord Best, has spoken to Amendment 55B, which seeks to allow the modified obligation on first applications to be more onerous than the original obligation. If a developer undertook a voluntary renegotiation, he would neither expect nor agree to more onerous terms. He would expect to come out with something better than he went in with. He would revert to the original, agreed obligation if the negotiation was unsuccessful. Under this application process, we want to replicate these circumstances for the first application. It provides an important incentive for developers to come forward and review their schemes. We need housebuilders to bring sites forward and I hope that this provision will ensure that they do this.
The clause also provides an important distinction between the first and subsequent applications to encourage the developer to proceed quickly. Under the first application, the affordable housing requirement must be reconsidered if it is found to be causing the scheme to be unviable. The local planning authority must modify or remove it so as to make the development viable, and the outcome must not be more onerous than the original obligation.
In relation to a second or subsequent application relating to the same planning obligation, the authority has more flexibility in amending the affordable housing requirement. Where it is justified on the basis of economic viability, the affordable housing requirement could be made more onerous than in the original obligation. The only restriction is that the amended obligation must not make the development economically unviable.
The distinction between first and second applications provides a real incentive for developers to reach a new agreement on their affordable housing requirements on the first application and to get on with building. It discourages repeat applications unless the developer is very clear that viability evidence supports their case. It also provides an important incentive for them to come forward and review their schemes. The purpose of these provisions is to ensure that development goes ahead and is not delayed because of unviable affordable housing requirements.
This amendment prevents a developer requesting the local authority to remove the affordable housing requirement, even if viability evidence justified this. It is not our intention that developers should remove all affordable housing requirements. We want affordable housing to be justified on the grounds of viability. In the clear majority of cases, we expect that evidence will demonstrate that some—probably most—affordable housing is viable
However, there will be some cases where evidence demonstrates that no affordable housing at all can be supported by the development. The developer must have the option to apply for this and the local authority must have the option to agree to this. Stalling development with unviable affordable housing requirements serves no purpose. Stalled development brings no local benefit to anybody. I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord that this clause does not encourage applications to remove all affordable housing but looks to ensure that viable applications are agreed to enable development to proceed.
Amendments 55BB and 55BD propose a review of affordable housing after two years where land value has increased. These amendments aim to put in place primary legislation incentives to ensure that developers build their schemes. They look to allow local authorities some control where obligations have not been delivered within two years. The drafting of Clause 6 does not prevent local authorities agreeing a mechanism with developers to increase obligations should markets improve. I am aware that this is the practice in many local authorities where obligations are “staircased” according to market conditions.
We will be clear in guidance on the options open to local authorities, and I urge that this be allowed to be negotiated locally, according to local circumstances. I do not agree that a fixed period for review in primary legislation would be helpful. I hope that the noble Lord will now think that the clauses are helpful.
National Planning Policy Statement
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Best(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, it is a matter for the Chancellor whether the cap is lifted on local authority borrowing. It is not something that I can enter into at the moment. Local authorities know their limitations as far as prudential borrowing is concerned at present.
Lord Best
My Lords, does the Minister agree that a very good way of minimising the take of land, while maximising the number of people who are housed, is by building retirement apartments? The people who move into those retirement apartments—which are much better for them—often vacate three-bedroom or four-bedroom houses. Did she note the statistic in the report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Housing and Care for Older People last week that 85,000 homes for older people would actually lead to 400,000 people being housed because of the homes that they vacate?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Best, on the HAPPI 2 report, which introduced these figures. Yes, of course, it would be ideal for older people to have housing that is absolutely suitable to their needs and built especially for them. It would remove the possibility that they are living in family housing that is too big for them and hard to cope with. It is right that those statistics mean that there would be more housing for families under those circumstances.
Local Government Finance Bill
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Best
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for introducing this amendment. I do not like not agreeing with him either—he is someone whom I think everyone admires in this Chamber and whom I have known for a long time—but disagreement there is going to be. I note that the noble Lord opposite said the same thing.
I start by declaring an interest in that I receive a single person discount, and very welcome it is, too, but I am not starting out from that basis today. The amendment is about the local authority’s discretion to change the rate of council tax to a single person, which it can discount by 25% at the moment. The noble Lord suggests that that could go down to 20%. As has been pointed out, that is not what the amendment says. It says that you could remove the discount. Local authorities could be left going from 25% to 0% on the back of it. There is nothing in it at all to limit this to a reduction to 20%. If the noble Lord did that, I am absolutely certain that there would be objections from all around that that was not localism, it was restrictive, and that if we wanted to go further down this discount route the right thing would be to have the full range. We have to be very careful about this.
It is also true, as my noble friend Lord True said, that we have never consulted on reducing council tax discounts. This is a tax and there has been no consultation on that at all. In effect, even if we accepted that the discount would go down to 20%, it would be a potential tax increase for over 8 million people who at present receive the single person discount. It would hit them. There has been some sort of idea all through this debate that this would have no effect on people who are poor. That is ridiculous. Lots of people who are poor pay council tax. They are in a position of being in property, having to pay council tax and getting suitable benefits for that. They might be single parents, lone pensioners or—there was an aside about this—people living in a big house. People live in big houses because they start in them. They do not particularly want to sell that house, and would probably get to the state where they do not know how to because it is so complicated. Why should they move? Why should they not be entitled to that single person discount? That does not mean that they are rolling in money. They are not. We have to dispel the idea that everyone who receives a single person discount can afford to give it up. That is a false impression and we cannot allow it to go on.
To reinforce that, over three-quarters of the claimants of the single person discount live in bands A to C, with over a third living in band A. Only 10% of claimants live in properties that are band E or above. This is not a tax that can be reduced just for the rich. It is very much a tax borne by people who are not particularly well off. However much we might say that they “only” have to lose a certain amount of money, they would only have to lose, as other people would, money that they cannot afford.
The amendment would undermine the fundamental principle behind council tax. I was fascinated by how the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, trailed through all the forms of property and council tax that there have been. Rates were certainly not popular. The principle behind council tax is that it is part property and part personal tax, and is based on two people in occupation. It is clearly defined. The discount reflects the fact that there is only one person in the property, where it is clear that one person does not make as much use of services as a family would. It also has a wide range of support. It is clear and easy, and people understand that it is a relief just for a single person. As my noble friend Lord True and I said, the Government did not consult on changing this discount, as it is a tax, in the consultation on technical reforms to council tax and have no plans to change that.
Noble Lords have previously commented on the amount of revenue that might be raised by reducing the rate of discount. I sound a note of caution on that. People losing the single person discount under this amendment, such as single pensioners and lone parents, might ultimately find themselves in greater need of help to pay their council tax. They might need benefit, so that would not be very helpful. This would mean curtailing the impact of any additional resources, putting more people in need of state support and creating unintended pressures on councils. I am sure the House would agree that that is not quite the hoped for consequence of the amendment.
The technical reforms to council tax in the Bill change the way empty properties are treated with a view to bringing them more quickly back into use. That may also generate welcome additional revenue for local authorities. However, as I said, changing the single person discount would lead to a significant hike in tax on a very large number of people. The amendment would also affect the operation of council tax discounts for empty dwellings. The default discount that applies where there is no resident of a dwelling could be varied by the billing authority. This change is not necessary as the Government already plan to extend authorities’ discretion over discounts for empty dwellings. We discussed that in Committee.
I understand that noble Lords have concerns about local authorities’ ability to make savings and to raise revenue from the flexibilities in the system at the moment. We have offered transitional support, which has been sneered at a bit today. I hope that with a little more time and consideration noble Lords and local authorities might appreciate that that is a helping hand, even if it is for a year at this stage. It is important that we recognise that the Government have made a significant move here. As a result of what I and other noble Lords have said, and the fact that this is a government initiative—so the coalition is wrapped up in it—I cannot support the amendment of my friend the noble Lord, Lord Best. I am sad about that because I normally like to do so. I hope he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Best
My Lords, I am enormously grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I will pick up on one or two points that have been made. I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who reminded us of the poll tax riots and told us to learn from experience. Those were wise words. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who made the point that there is a shortfall that must be met. Can it not be met by people other than the poorest? I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Bichard, who felt that this was a practical way of helping those in most need and was a last chance to do something. My noble friend Lord Palmer had done the arithmetic and made the point that it would be very easy to collect a reduction in the single person discount as opposed to the incredible difficulty of trying to collect from people who have never paid tax before. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made the point that with no increase in council tax because of the freezes, the better off will be paying no more tax next year, but the poorest, rather paradoxically, will pay for the first time. He emphasised the value of localism.
The noble Lord, Lord True, was the first voice contrary to the mood of the House at that stage that this amendment was well worth pursuing. His comments were reflected in some of what the Minister said. I will take those points together. The noble Lord made the specific point about Richmond that if the single person discount was abolished altogether, people would face a council tax increase of £6 per week. He pointed out that that would clearly be significant. However, he mentioned that if the reduction was confined to a reduction from 25% to 20%, the worst situation for those people would be nearer to a £1 a week rise, which does not sound as bad. That was certainly the intention behind the amendment.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, gave us a wonderful history lesson and supported the whole essence of localism that is built into the arrangements that we would be extending with flexibility under the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, with some reluctance, felt it important to support the amendment. There are better ways, but we have to be careful that we do not go for the best and drive out the good. This is our best shot to make a significant difference. The noble Lords explained that the amendment would be very helpful to places such as Wigan, even if it is not a panacea that would solve all the problems there.
I turn to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. I fully recognise that without the support of the opposition Benches, the arithmetic of this House means that it is impossible for me to carry an amendment tonight. I am sorry that political differences came into play outside the scope of Cross-Benchers. The noble Lord makes the point that a broader approach is needed. No one would disagree with that. He makes the same point as the noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble Baroness that the amendment could mean more than a reduction from 25% to 20%. Because it is an open amendment, it could mean abolishing the single person discount altogether. That could be painful to people on lower incomes. He makes the point that the amendment does not exclude pensioners. Many would argue that, at whatever income level, they should be removed from the equation. He is not sure about how the distribution from council to council would work. Richer local authorities may do better, and we need some more work on that. However, the better amendment proposed from the noble Lord’s Benches has failed to get support. Therefore, I hope that something lesser might find acceptance on his Benches. It has not so far.
The Minister also made the point that some restriction on such an amendment, so that it could not lead to the single person discount being removed altogether, is important. She points out that the single person discount has a justification and a purpose. The noble Lord, Lord True, also mentioned that. It is hard to argue that a 25% reduction for single people equates with any precision to the difference between the services required by a single person household and a household with more than one person. Indeed, as pensioners are included, single pensioners require a lot of services which a household with two pensioners does not require, because those people look after each other. It does not follow that if you are on your own you necessarily cost less. If you are a single parent with several children, you may be costing the local authority a good deal. It does not follow that a single person household necessarily uses fewer services from the council.
As a general principle, I do not argue that the single person discount does not have some merit, but a reduction from 25% to 20% can be argued just as easily as the retention of a 25% line. Any amendment that would find favour in your Lordships’ House is likely to be more precise about that. It is likely to state that the level of discount should never be less than X—perhaps 20%. There should continue to be such a discount. Perhaps it should state that pensioners should be excluded. As the Minister pointed out, that would reduce the amount of localism in the amendment, but perhaps an amendment that contains such an element would be more likely to find favour with your Lordships. My colleagues and I need more time to see how the £100 million transition plays into that. Every little helps, and I know that local government is grateful for that amelioration, relatively modest as it is.
This is not the time for me to press the amendment. I, and I hope others, have learnt that different forms of an amendment might find favour across the House, and I reserve the right to return with a different amendment at Third Reading. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Best
My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment as well. As a long-time campaigner on the famous bedroom tax, I am very supportive of this amendment, which I think affects only between 2,000 and 3,000 households. For them, however, it would be very important and to have a double whammy would be disastrous for that group. I support the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we discussed this in Committee and, while I appreciate and understand the intention behind the amendment, the trouble is that this would reopen debates that I know have already been had on what is now the Welfare Reform Act. The Government do not plan to revisit what is in that Act. Blanket exemptions for specific groups, including for disabled people and those living in adapted accommodation, were extensively discussed then. I appreciate that the noble Baroness has now reduced this exemption to thousands of people rather than tens of thousands, but the fact of the matter is that it reopens something which I do not think we can reopen here.
Blanket exemptions can also be an inefficient and complex way of targeting resources, so the Government favour discretionary housing payments to help meet any shortfalls between a person’s rent and a housing benefit award. Noble Lords will recall that we announced that an additional £30 million would be added to the discretionary housing payments fund from 2013-14. This is aimed specifically at two groups: disabled people living in significantly adapted accommodation and foster carers. Local councils make the decisions on them on their individual circumstances. However, I assure the House and the noble Baroness that the Government have no intention of changing the long-standing council tax disabled band reduction scheme and that anyone in receipt of a reduction will not lose it as a result of the underoccupation measure. As I say, I cannot support this amendment and I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.
Local Government Finance Bill
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Best(11 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hanham
I did have to look over my shoulder for that one and I am told that it is an improvement against physical growth, but I will write a bit further to the noble Baroness.
Lord Best
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who supported this difficult but fundamentally important amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. Perhaps I might respond briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, by saying that the objections he raises—first, that some places would get a windfall and might not deserve it and, secondly, that some places will see a fall in rental values and therefore of rateable values and income—did not strike me as undermining the case here. Major infrastructure projects require people to buy into them; to accept that Crossrail will come through town, or whatever the big issue is. It helps if there is some financial return to that area for the inconvenience that can elapse, perhaps for several years, when major infrastructure projects come through. However, this amendment is not of course specifically addressing that but addressing the upgrading of a particular part of town by the efforts of the local authority. That is the principal objective.
In relation to the noble Lord’s second point, that some areas may see a fall in values—that factories may close and nothing may happen—this amendment is intended to provide local authorities with a greater incentive to prevent that and to do something about it. If the council makes the area much better for customers to come to and for offices to recruit staff to work there, and if it does some good for the area, that is surely good for the local economy and can revive and regenerate a place. However, if councils have absolutely no incentive to spend that money in times of difficult resource allocation for them, it would seem most unlikely that local authorities would put their backs into trying to drive some business improvement and growth in those places. It strikes me that this amendment still has some heart to it. The technicalities have completely escaped me along the way and I would be very grateful if I could take up the Minister’s offer to explore whether or not her response was helpful.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, gave me an opportunity to respond, which I am not going to take.
Housing: Managing Agents
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Best
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, managing agents are employed by the freeholders, although leaseholders have rights as to what they are being charged for and the work that is being done. We believe that any managing agent acting on behalf of a landlord owes a duty of care to leaseholders. Reasonable steps should be taken to ensure that all work is done properly and safely. Leaseholders of course have a right to challenge the management of their blocks and the people who are doing it through the leasehold valuation tribunal.
Lord Best
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of the council of The Property Ombudsman, which listens to complaints against managing agents. Although the Minister is probably against regulation of this sector, does she agree that it would be a good idea if it was compulsory for all managing agents to belong to an ombudsman scheme that can resolve disputes between residents and managing agents without the need to go to court?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I do not think that we would want to compel managing agents to do that, but I agree that it would be very helpful if they would voluntarily ensure that they are members of the ombudsman scheme, which is very valuable in terms of leaseholders being sure that they are getting and can get proper access to advice.
Housing: Rented Homes
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Best(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, young people on the waiting list who require affordable homes, or who are being asked to find private accommodation, will, like everybody else, have to see where they can find accommodation that they can afford. That is happening across London in particular. Housing benefit will support what it can, but I am afraid that people either have to pay the additional amount or find somewhere that falls within their capability. I do not think that anybody wants to go back to rent control. It was not helpful, did not leave properties in good condition and was not fair.
Lord Best
My Lords, will the Minister tell us what is happening about the real estate investment trusts, which are the intermediaries that allow insurance companies and the big pension funds to invest in residential property? They have been held up for a long time by the bureaucracy and complexity of the system but we badly need the finances that those big City institutions could put into residential housing. They would probably be rather good landlords. Will she tell us what is happening about those REITs?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I recognise entirely what the noble Lord has said. This is a very important aspect of getting money into residential accommodation. I think this matter is still being discussed with the Treasury. I hope that it will be able to say something about that in the not too distant future.
Housing: Landlord and Tenant Legislation
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Best
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am sure that the Law Commission pays enormous attention to what we say in the House. It will have heard what has been said and, if it thinks that that is a valuable investigation to undertake, I have no doubt that it will do so.
Lord Best
My Lords, I declare my housing interests as in the register and support the proposals of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. Does the Minister agree that it would be unwise to think of reforming landlord and tenant legislation to bring back security of tenure on an indefinite basis and rent controls, even though we face alarming rises in rents and some very bad landlords, because such a return would bring back the deterrent to institutional investment at a time when we badly need more money to come into rented housing? Would it not be better to use tax incentives and disincentives to reward good landlords and encourage investment by institutional investors?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Best, in his question. Bringing back indefinite security of tenure and rent controls is not the right way forward. We need a vital and highly flexible private rented sector, and previous experience has shown that measures such as he has described act only to reduce supply and that does not help tenants. As I am sure he knows, changes were made to stamp duty in the 2010 Budget, and we already have a commitment to look at the rules on real estate investment trusts. These are important signals about the value that we place on such investment and on the private rented sector.
Localism Bill
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Best(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, before we get lost in the fact that we are nearly there, I will answer the noble Lord, Lord Best, briefly, but I hope satisfactorily. I want to make it clear that local authorities can use existing planning mechanisms to take forward planning proposals that a neighbourhood forum or parish council has produced without needing to hold a referendum. The draft neighbourhood plan policies can be taken forward by the local authority as a development plan document which is subject to independent examination but not referendum. Similarly, the permissions in the neighbourhood development order can be taken forward as a local development order which is subject to neither independent examination nor referendum. So both development plan documents and local development orders are required to be subject to appropriate and effective consultation.
However, it is an underpinning principle of this Bill that a parish council or neighbourhood forum should always be able to ask the wider community to decide in a referendum whether a neighbourhood plan or order should come into force. Therefore, neighbourhood development plans and neighbourhood development orders, which are tools that the Localism Bill introduces for planning at a neighbourhood level, will always be subject to a referendum of the neighbourhood. The referendum gives everyone in the community the opportunity to have their say and demonstrate evidence of community support in a manner that cannot be demonstrated through a petition or consultation.
Local authorities that work effectively with their communities in planning at a neighbourhood level will be in a good position to decide whether to take emerging proposals through the development plan or local development order route, but it has to be right that if a local community wants it, it can use the power in the Bill to prepare a neighbourhood development plan or order and ensure that the wider community has the final say in a referendum. The removal of that right would undermine one of the core building blocks of neighbourhood planning as envisaged in the Localism Bill.
With those reassurances and clarifications, I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Localism Bill
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Best(12 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hanham
Discussions are going on with the Planning Inspectorate at the moment to see what is required to make the examination process quicker. Under the new way of working, local authorities will be able to have single areas examined one at a time instead of the whole policy having to be dealt with. It is well understood that the Planning Inspectorate will be put under pressure and we hope and expect that that will be able to be worked around.
I have said all that I can say about a transitional period. The transitional arrangements will come about as a result of the consultation on the NPPF. The noble Lord thinks that a set period might be a good idea. However, as I said, with the experience of the previous set period, which does not seem to have put any pressure on local authorities, we would need to consider very carefully whether there is any value in having that.
Lord Best
My Lords, we have clearly come a long way since the Committee stage of the Bill and I am very grateful to Members of the House from all sides, who were extremely supportive of these measures to cover this transitional period.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was right in expecting that the best we could hope for was not something in the Bill, but some firm guidance. I fully appreciate that the consultation period finishes only today. Therefore mulling over what others have said and taking it into account may take a little time. However, it would be very helpful before we get to Third Reading if the Minister were able to share her thoughts and put a bit more flesh on the bones of how these transitional arrangements may work. In particular, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has said, perhaps she could give us a little more specificity—if I have got that right—and be a little more definite on the timescales that local authorities will be expected to adopt—indeed, timescales that are reasonable in the circumstances and allow sensible things to happen.
I must acknowledge a very helpful meeting with Greg Clark down the other end. I am expecting the outcome of this to be positive and helpful, even if it comes in the form of guidance and is not in the Bill. Perhaps I may reserve the right to bring this back at Third Reading if by that stage we find that very little progress—I do not think that that will happen—has been made. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Localism Bill
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Best(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we did indeed discuss this yesterday and we had a bit of discussion on the subjective nature of design decisions. I think we all agree that design is an enormously important part of planning, as indeed it is an important part of developing and ensuring how a community looks and what an area is like.
I have great admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Best, but I think this amendment is unnecessary. As he has already pointed out, planning authorities get independent expert advice from the Design Council, and local planning authorities are already able and indeed encouraged to submit applications to design review panels and to heed their impartial, expert advice. I am not sure that putting any more legislation forward on this will do anything. However, we will undertake to give encouragement to local authorities to make sure that they understand that design review panels are a good thing. So there really is no reason for this. We need to keep it out of legislation. I understand the purpose behind it but there are already proper ways of dealing with this. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I shall learn after another few years if I have not learnt before. My apologies to the House.
I will speak to the amendments in my name. Government Amendments 174N and 174P are small amendments which remove requirements on landlords to register a tenancy with the Land Registry and execute the tenancy by deed. They reflect concerns from the National Housing Federation that requirements to register tenancies with a term of more than seven years and execute by deed those with a term of more than three years would discourage landlords from granting longer-term tenancies. There are, in these circumstances, no practical advantages to a social tenant from either the tenancy being registered or executed by deed since they cannot deal in their tenancy—that is, tenancies in social housing may not be bought and sold. These amendments simply put fixed-term social tenants on the same footing as secure or assured social tenants in this regard.
I turn to government Amendments 173CAA, 173CC, 173CD, 174B, 174C, 174D, 174E, 174F, 174G, 174H, 174J, 174K, 174L and 174M. These amendments make small corrections to the existing text of the Bill and provide additional clarification where parliamentary counsel considers this helpful. They make no change to our policy intention. Those are the government amendments; I now turn to the debate on this part of the Bill which, as I expected, was again half understanding but also slightly quarrelsome. I will again seek to answer the amendments as well as I can.
The amendment spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, would be an unhelpful restriction on local authority landlords’ flexibility to use their social housing stock in a way which best meets the needs of individual households and their local area. This question was about the two-year minimum-term offers. I need to explain that we believe that there is some advantage in seriously exceptional circumstances—and I stress these will be very exceptional circumstances—for landlords to be able to provide for a short period of housing when it is felt it is needed and proper protection.
We have consulted landlords on this and they have made it clear that the great majority would only issue two-year tenancies under exceptional circumstances. As we expect and mean that to be exceptional, as I will say later on, we will look to see what we need to do to underline that. We continue to affirm that we expect longer tenancies of five or 10 years, and of course lifetime tenancies, to be the norm. Those are particularly for vulnerable households or those with children.
Of course the vulnerable will be protected. We intend to require landlords in their tenancy policies to take specific account of the needs of those who are vulnerable through the provision of tenancies that provide a reasonable degree of stability. Two-year tenancies might be appropriate in particular and probably quite exceptional circumstances—for example, helping young people to enter employment; for a family who need a larger home for the short term; or perhaps for someone who has had a serious accident, cannot manage in their own home for a short period and needs access to accessible housing for a short term before they return home. As regards larger housing requirements, people’s children often leave home and therefore the tenancy may not be needed any more. We know that some local authorities are considering how fixed-term tenancies could help them to develop support packages for recovering drug addicts, for example.
I want to underline firmly that we are looking for these provisions to be applied in exceptional circumstances and, in the light of today’s debate, I will reflect on how we can ensure that social landlords grant only tenancies with a term of less than five years in exceptional circumstances. We probably will not be able to put that in the Bill because it may not make sense; but there will be strong guidance about what we mean by exceptional two-year tenancies. I will discuss this matter with officials and consider the best way of dealing with it because I want to make it absolutely clear so that people are not concerned any more. I know that they have been.
Amendments 173B, 174A and 174 propose new clauses that would create categories of individuals and families who could not be offered a flexible tenancy. They would always have to receive a lifetime tenancy. We recognise that the needs of older people and the needs of those with a disability, for example, are likely to remain broadly constant over the long term. Lifetime or long-term tenancies are, of course, likely to be appropriate for these households in the vast majority of cases. More importantly, landlords recognise that too. In only the most exceptional cases will two-year tenancies be granted, but they will usually be for significantly longer or a lifetime for those with ongoing needs. As a safeguard, our draft direction to the social housing regulator sets out our intention to require landlords in their tenancy policies to take specific account of the needs of the vulnerable. Indeed, we have strengthened our proposed terms for the tenure standard, having listened carefully to the views expressed. That is a better way forward than seeking to prescribe centrally categories of people who should always be granted a lifetime tenancy.
The new clauses proposed by Amendments 173B and 174A include a new ground for possession to be available for secure tenancies and provided to some new tenants if a property is more extensive than is reasonably required by the tenant and if the landlord can supply a suitable alternative. I support the intention behind these amendments. We need to do more to make best use of social homes, but we do not believe that these amendments are the right way forward. Flexible tenancies will be a far better means of tackling overcrowding and underoccupancy. They offer a straightforward deal between landlords and tenants, particularly on underoccupancy. A landlord could, for example, offer a family a large family home on a 15-year tenancy on the clear understanding that they would be required to move to a smaller social property at the end of that term when their children had left home and, therefore, they had more space than was necessary.
Amendment 173CB seeks to put into legislation for some existing tenants the guarantee of continued security on moving home. We by contrast are putting in place through regulation a guarantee of continued security for all existing tenants who move to a social rented home. I hope that that answers the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. We are upholding our promise that existing tenants’ rights would be protected and respected, and that includes guaranteeing the same level of security to existing tenants who move to another social rented property. We will do that through a direction to the housing regulator on the new tenancy standard, which we have now published for consultation. All social landlords will be required to meet the tenancy standard, which will guarantee continued security to existing secure and assured tenancy, unlike this amendment.
We do not believe Amendments 173D and 173E are necessary. A review of the original decision must be carried out by a more senior officer not previously involved to ensure that the decision was fair and in line with the landlord’s published tenancy policy. Should the reviewing officer conclude that the decision is not in line with the landlord’s policy then the landlord will have to reconsider. If he does not then a tenant can approach a local councillor, MP or tenancy panel for assistance and have their case referred to the Housing Ombudsman. The Bill makes clear that where a landlord seeks possession of a tenant’s property, despite a review concluding that they were not acting in line with their own policy, then of course the court will refuse that application. The inclusion of a reference to comply with human rights is therefore not necessary. Landlords will need to ensure their decisions on tenancies are proportionate in human rights terms. Recent judgments make clear that a tenant of a local authority will be able to raise a proportionality defence in possession proceedings.
Amendment 173CE would widen the scope of the review available to a tenant or prospective tenant on the length of a tenancy being offered by a local authority. As the Bill stands, the review gives the individual an opportunity to request a review if they consider that the length of the tenancy they are being offered is not in line with the landlord’s published tenancy policy. That policy must set out the kinds and length of tenancies the landlord will grant in different circumstances. If a decision by the landlord appears to be out of line with the policy then it is absolutely right that a prospective tenant should be able to challenge it. If a prospective tenant has concerns that the tenancy policy is not fair, they are free to pursue the issue through the landlord complaints procedure.
Amendment 173CF changes the wording of the Bill to request a review on the length of tenancy. We are covered with that; as it stands, a person seeking a review could argue that their tenancy should be for life.
I will respond to Amendment 174AA although I am not sure whether it was spoken to. While I agree it makes sense that when a tenancy will be for life, a tenant should be compensated when the tenancy is for a fixed term, a right to compensation makes less sense. Perhaps we did not discuss compensation but I will finish nevertheless. This is about flexibility for the landlord, making sure they can make best use of their stock. Forcing a landlord to pay for improvements made by a tenant who may shortly be moving on is just not practical.
I have spoken in some detail—perhaps more than anybody would have wished— but I hope that having done so it will set the base for future debate. I ask that, with those responses, noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Best
My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the Minister for that very long and valuable exposition of the many ways in which things may turn out for the best at the end of this process. I welcome her reassurance that lifelong tenancies will still be very much the bread and butter of what social housing is all about; not just for those with extremely important ongoing needs, such as older people and those with disabilities, but for families with children, for whom a tenancy for life—a proper family home—is so important. Where social landlords do use flexible tenancies, she makes it clear that these will seldom be for less than the full five years. In any case, they will be relatively exceptional.
The noble Baroness mentioned the guarantee that those who move or transfer their home will take with them the same security of tenure. That is very important. She made a lot of reassurances that we will be able to read at our leisure during the summer, which I hope we will find satisfactory. The Minister explained that a lot of those ministerial intents will be put into practice through the regulator having the power to issue firm requirements on social landlords in relation to tenure. That is an extension of the way in which the regulator works at present. None of the three noble Lords whose names were above mine who were to oppose the Question that Clause 133 should stand part of the Bill rose to do so—I do not suggest that they do now. The noble Baroness explains the value of the regulator having that role. She gives me a dilemma because, as a matter of principle, many people are opposed to the Secretary of State giving more and more instructions to the regulator and are aware of the dangers that that has of taking away the independence of the social housing landlords. Perhaps we could debate those matters when some of us oppose Clause 134 standing part of the Bill. In the mean time, with all those reassurances from the noble Baroness, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Best
My Lords, I apologise for speaking again, but I shall do so only briefly. Amendment 173C is supported by the Local Government Association and the National Housing Federation. Clause 131 places a duty on every local authority to draw up a tenancy strategy for its area. The social landlords, the registered providers of social housing, must then have regard to that tenancy strategy in formulating their tenancy policies. Neither local authorities nor housing associations are in favour of that idea. Pursuing a theme affecting the whole Bill, I oppose the centralist tendency at work here in dictating the process and instructing local authorities on how to act—in this case, making them produce a new strategy.
Local authorities do not want to be told what to do in their procedures. Equally, housing associations are not keen on that prescriptive approach when they know that better results can be achieved by forging locally tailored partnerships. Bodies such as the Chartered Institute of Housing have strongly encouraged local authorities to reduce tenant strategies for some time, and those voluntary arrangements are working well. Therefore, the replacement clause in my amendment is intended to get local authorities and social housing providers to work together, with councils taking the strategic role in identifying housing requirements and the tenancy policies that flow from understanding those data. Such an approach goes with the grain of localism and recognises the very different housing strategies already been brought together by a number of local authorities, from the Derbyshire Dales to the London Borough of Hackney, to create mutually agreed approaches with their partners. This is how it should be. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I have a swift answer for the noble Lord. A tenancy strategy will not be onerous. There is no requirement for it to be in a specific format or of a particular length or particular content. Many local authorities have indicated that they want to build on the existing policies and strategies, and Clause 131 rightly requires the authority to consult housing associations before adopting strategy. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Localism Bill
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Best(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we had a long discussion on the previous amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, says, and I think that that covered what has been raised here. I can confirm that Amendments 76 and 77 would prevent another referendum within 10 years. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord not to press Amendments 76, 77, 78 and 79. Government amendments have already been agreed to. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his very kind remarks. I am off now to become a free woman.
Lord Best
I send the Minister on her way with further congratulations on the changes that have withdrawn the offending passages about shadow mayors. The top three in the Local Government Association’s long list of hopeful amendments include removal of the references to the combination of elected mayor and chief executive and removal of the issues around shadow mayors. That just leaves in our top three the question of EU fines, which will come up later. However, two out of three so far is extremely satisfactory and we are extremely grateful to the Minister for that.
Housing: Market Stability
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Best
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, the Government welcome the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s investigation and report, which was published last Tuesday. We share its desire to see a fairer, more stable housing market that does not shut out first-time buyers and where house prices rise more smoothly in line with earnings. The report concludes that there are no easy answers to address the underlying causes of market instability. However, we are working across government to assess the options that are available and will publish a housing supply strategy in the autumn.
Lord Best
I thank the Minister for that very positive and helpful reply. I am sure that this report will be helpful to Ministers, and indeed to everyone who wants to see a stable housing market, not boom and bust. Does the Minister agree that the level of mortgage repossessions, which are now running at 100 a day, might get a lot worse if interest rates and unemployment rise? If so, does she agree that the proposals in this new report for a mortgage protection payment insurance scheme to provide a safety net for homebuyers would be good not only in preventing their homelessness but in stabilising the housing market at a difficult time?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we welcome any proposals that will enable us to work with the industry to try to find a way around the barriers faced by the insurance scheme at the moment. We currently welcome private insurance solutions and recognise that there are enormous challenges for first-time buyers. We are already running the mortgage rescue scheme, as I am sure the noble Lord knows. Some £200 million has been put into that scheme already, and we have already helped 38,000 households with that money as well as with advice and support. So it is not as though the Government are not doing anything—we are making substantial efforts—and if the economy were to stabilise and settle down, much of this problem would go away.
Homelessness
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Best
Lord Best
My Lords, did the Minister see the report last week from Homeless Link, which suggested that one in six places in hostels for homeless people will have to go because of the cuts to the Supporting People grants? Will she join the Housing Minister Grant Shapps and campaigners in this field in urging local authorities, even in these difficult times, not to cut the Supporting People grants, which both cure and prevent homelessness?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, local authorities have no excuse for cutting the Supporting People grants, which have by and large been preserved in cash terms—the reduction is less than 1 per cent. Although that is part of the unring-fenced grant, we still expect to see that amount of money put towards supporting people. Reductions in the number of bed spaces available cannot be attributed to that because the money is there to ensure that there is sufficient accommodation for people who are rough sleeping and are being taken into hostels.
Housing
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Best(13 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the answer is yes for future tenancies, and no for existing tenancies and arrangements.
Lord Best
My Lords, on housing benefit, am I right in thinking that, following yesterday’s announcement in the CSR, somebody in their 30s in a one-bedroom flat who loses their job will find that if they need housing benefit they will have to leave that flat, where they might have lived for some time, and find somewhere to share with other people? That is a fairly tall order in many parts of the country. Is that the position we find ourselves in with the raising of the level for housing benefit?