Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Lord Best and Lord Campbell-Savours
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, we are coming to the end of the debates on the forced sale of council homes. The Minister has noted that, through regulations, the Government will be excluding certain categories of council housing and, since no decisions have yet been taken, she has welcomed proposals from your Lordships. The amendments in this group address what I maintain is an essential exclusion, namely council properties that become vacant in rural areas, as my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington has explained. If vacant council properties in rural areas are removed from the calculation of the new levy that pays for discounts for housing association tenants, there will be no pressure or obligation on councils to sell these valuable homes.
Almost by definition, council housing in villages is likely to be more sought-after than that on council estates in urban areas. These are the properties most likely to be in the higher-value bracket and therefore most vulnerable to the requirement to sell to pay the levy. The circuitous route whereby funds circle round from council house sales to housing association discounts to tenants, to the housing association building programmes, sounds like a new version of the house that Jack built: here is the levy paid by the council, that sells vacant homes, that funds new discounts, that goes to the housing association that pays for the house that Jack built. It is certainly a convoluted process with particular ramifications for rural communities.
The bungalows issue revealed by the recent report of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation is highly pertinent. If the calculation of “high value” for the levy is to be related to the size of the property, the most high-value one-bedroom and two-bedroom homes are likely to be bungalows. Of course, council bungalows, which are important for the downsizers, who can then free up family houses, are prevalent in villages because land was available there in the past.
A lot of attention has been given to the potential loss of rural social housing if housing associations choose to opt in to the right to buy for their rural properties. However, the issue here—the loss of council homes in villages when they become vacant—could be far more damaging to the prospects of local families obtaining an affordable home where they have been brought up or at least are working. First, I suspect that few housing associations will feel it right to sell their rural homes, because they are so difficult to replace. Secondly, the impact of the new right to buy will not be felt until the existing occupiers, the buyers, move out—maybe in several years’ time—but the loss of vacant council housing will be felt immediately as local families needing a home in the village cannot move into properties that become vacant.
The existing council right to buy has led to a much higher proportion of sales—over twice the level—in rural settings compared with urban areas. If, as I believe, the Government recognise the importance of rural communities, I hope that these properties will be taken out of the levy requirements. At the very least—as set out in the amendments in the names of myself, my noble friends Lord Cameron and Lord Kerslake, the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Stoneham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell—if these precious homes are sold, steps must be taken to replace them, perhaps through support to a rural housing association, and land must be allocated for this purpose, often no doubt on rural exception sites. Best of all would be the simple removal from the levy system of the virtually irreplaceable affordable homes serving our rural communities.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, last week I mentioned the position in my former constituency, where you have on the west coast of Cumbria council housing that is fairly inexpensive when it is sold and, in the Lake District part of my former constituency, which includes the town of Keswick and a number of villages in that vicinity, council property that is very expensive when it is sold off. In Workington and Maryport, you could buy a former council house today on a subsequent sale—not straight after right to buy—for as little as £50,000 or £60,000. A similar house in the Lake District part of the constituency would now cost between £250,000 and £300,000. The latter group of houses will now fall under the provisions of the Bill in the sense that the local authority will be required to sell them.
The problem is very simple: those houses are irreplaceable. They cannot be replaced, as there is no land. I understand from a letter to my noble friend Lady Hollis today that local authorities will be able to rely on housing associations to replace property lost under right to buy through this one-for-one arrangement. However, that does not deal with the problem if there is no land. You cannot expect the Lake District planning board—or any national park planning board anywhere in the United Kingdom—to compromise all its principles and provide for planning permission on land where otherwise it would not, simply to meet the objectives of the Government and this one-for-one replacement.
I think of villages and small hamlets where there might be only six or a dozen council houses at the moment. If we are required to sell those because of this nonsensical levy, all that will happen is that those properties will be lost to the young people who want to stay in the Lake District National Park—or in any national park in the United Kingdom where young people have been driven out because of high prices already. The properties end up on the second-home market in exactly the same way as the problem has developed over recent years in London.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred in speaking to his amendment to there being perhaps some flexibility in the Government’s position. I appeal to Ministers to look favourably on the position in the national parks, exempting them from the levy and from the requirement to sell in the event that they are approached to buy. Let us see some sanity in housing policy.
Lord Best
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kerslake is unable to be with us today, but I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Stoneham, for their support. I shall speak also to Amendments 70D and 75C. They all relate to the proposed mandatory rent increases for council tenants. I would guess that all of us who are known to have an interest in this Bill will have been lobbied more vociferously on the issue of “pay to stay” than anything else in the legislation. This is because the potential immediate impact of the measure is more frightening than any of the other ingredients in the Bill.
It threatens to reduce significantly the incomes of some 350,000 tenants. Rumours had suggested that those earning £1 more than the threshold of £30,000 outside London and £40,000 in London could see their rent doubling overnight. As the IFS pointed out, that cliff-edge approach would have a disastrous impact on incentives to work or work harder. I have heard of numerous cases where those who are just over the threshold would have been coerced by the huge rent rise to cut back on their working hours so that they could afford to keep their tenancy.
The good news for these very anxious tenants is that the options which the Government have now published are far less onerous than was feared. We now have the prospect of either a rent rise of 20p for every £1 earned over the limit—which is £4 per week on the rent for every £1,000 over the threshold—or £40 per week for someone earning £10,000 over the threshold, and 10p for every extra £1 earned, which is £20 per week for someone earning £10,000 over the threshold.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am sorry to intervene on the noble Lord, but I wonder if the Minister could indicate at this stage whether she intends to give us some real figures on the taper today to save us having to guess what they are during the course of the debate.
Lord Campbell-Savours
We need to know which one it is because it directly affects people’s incomes. Will the Minister not intervene at this stage and give us the information that will help us in the debate?
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Lord Best and Lord Campbell-Savours
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, referred to a conversation. The conversation means the review. I go back to what I have said before. My noble friend intervened on me to say that the review to which he was referring was a review carried out by the Government. The Bill is quite clear that the landlord under a fixed-term secure tenancy of a dwelling house must carry out a review to decide what to do at the end of the term. Again I ask: what is in the review? What matters will the local authority have in mind when it is reviewing the tenancy at the end of five years? If Ministers cannot answer me now they can write to us and let us know precisely what they are. The local authorities will be interested.
On the question of increased supply, I go back to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. When we talk about supply we do not have to talk exclusively about social tenancies. We can talk about houses that are purchased on the open market. In the town where he lives, Cookham, and in Maidenhead, where I live, builders tell me that you can build in this country a three-bedroom house for £80,000 to £85,000. That same house in Maidenhead or Cookham would be on the market now probably for £350,000 to £400,000. What is the difference? The difference is in the land value. If we were to address the issue of land values within the United Kingdom and bring them down to what they should be we would not have this problem of having to make increased provision of social housing. We would be able to sell people brand new two or three-bedroom houses at sensible and reasonable prices and this Bill, as I have said before, would be unnecessary. The problem is in land values. So when we deal with supply let us look not only at social housing; let us look at the cost of land.
Lord Best (CB)
Noble Lords will be glad to hear that I am not going to enter a debate on land value taxation. I speak to Amendments 82C and 82D. I am also going to say something about Amendment 82F in my name and in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Stoneham.
It is important to note that this provision relates only to future tenancies. That makes it so much better than the pay-to-stay arrangements which cover everybody who is already a tenant and may feel a sense of insecurity as a result. Existing tenants are not affected by this. That means the 4.4 million tenants in social housing should not worry so much about it. The amendment seeks to extend the minimum period of a tenancy from two years to five years and the maximum period from five years to ten years under these arrangements.
My amendment is not a very good one, I have to confess. I do not think it is terribly helpful. It would be better to stay with the Localism Act 2011 which the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, has explained to us. This gave local authorities the power to have short-term tenancies, but most local authorities of all political persuasions have decided that they do not want to go along with this. It is not very helpful. That is fine. They have that power available to them. I think we should probably leave things as they are.
It does not seem helpful, certainly, to the people who live there to be told that there is a mandatory limit on the time that they can stay before a rather nebulous review takes place. The housing associations have the opportunity to have shorter-term lettings of this kind. They also do not make much use of this. I have been chief executive of a housing association. I do not think we ever bothered with fixed terms of this kind. We wanted people to have a home to move in, settle down and stay. That was a service in its own right, getting people who had often had rather insecure lives the security to put down roots, send the kids to school and all the rest of it.
It is also, perhaps slightly surprisingly, the case that the new-look private landlords are the build-to-rent developers who are now building blocks of flats using insurance-company money, pension-fund money, who are coming into this business. They are interested in longer leases than the traditional six-month or 12-month shorthold tenancies. They see the sense of people staying.
Some noble Lords may have visited the build-to-let properties being built at Olympic Village. There are four-year leases, and people are talking about seven-year leases. It is a marketing ploy for them. It distinguishes them from the old-look private landlords. I think, therefore, that the tendency is to try to give people greater security of tenure, time to settle into places.
Amendment 82F is a little more specialist, but it seems important. As I read the schedule to the Bill, this part of the schedule says that the old-style secure tenancies will continue. If somebody moves because the council has required them to move—fair enough, the estate is being demolished or the tenant is being decanted temporarily. They move out but they do not lose their security of tenure. That is fine, but what the schedule says at the moment is that, if you apply to move, if it is your choice to move—perhaps it is an exchange with another tenant or a transfer to a new home—then you would lose your long-term security. This means that you would be ill advised to do so. If I was advising that tenant, I would say, “That is probably not a good idea, to lose your security of tenure”. This goes against the idea that we are extremely interested in stopping under-occupancy in this country. People will be moving very often to downsize, making way for other people who can move in, who may be overcrowded elsewhere. We want people to move and make best use of social housing. We do not want them to be frightened of doing that. It might be the mother fleeing violence—it is her decision; she wants to move elsewhere. It might be the overcrowded family getting the chance to move to somewhere bigger—they do not want to lose the security that they have at the moment. The amendment would delete that requirement. The Minister might explain to me that I am interpreting the provision inaccurately and that we have nothing to fear, but it looks as if the schedule, by removing security of tenure for people who transfer of their own volition, would be a bad move.
There does not seem to be any need for this, other than a kind of inbuilt feeling that people should feel a little bit insecure about their lives, which I do not feel is what those in the world of providing social housing want to happen. I would leave the Localism Act as it stands.
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Lord Best and Lord Campbell-Savours
Lord Campbell-Savours
That is an area that confuses me. When we talk about repayment, who is actually being repaid? I cannot work it out.
Lord Best
The Bill and my amendment leave open whether repayment would be to the local authority where the home has been built—which I would support—or to the Homes and Communities Agency, to be used for housing elsewhere.
By making the offer a little less generous—by making the cream a little less rich—the excessive stimulus and distortion of this market is reduced, I hope, and the cost to the nation in losing out on affordable rented homes is made a little easier to bear.