Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Stoneham of Droxford

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

If I remember rightly, under Section 52 agreements, that was precisely the case: the permission attached to the property was carried forward to subsequent buyers. In this mix of debate whereby it is being suggested that we should be more careful about their inclusion in these rural communities, if you have that kind of restriction in place, I cannot see that there is such a great problem.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the Committee of my interests as chair of Housing & Care 21. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has moved this amendment very fully. I will just mention a local example that illustrates the issue to which the Minister has to respond.

It is a village near where I live in Hampshire on the edge of the South Downs National Park called Wickham—the birthplace of William of Wykeham, the famous Lord Chancellor in the reign of Edward III. It is a nice rural village. A friend of mine who is a local landowner and farmer decided, in the interests of the village, to donate some land as an exception site for approximately 11 properties and a doctors’ surgery on the edge of the village. That was done, and the houses were divided between a housing association and a community land trust. When he heard about the right to buy, he was incandescent, because he had given this land in good faith. Despite remaining a substantial landowner in the area, he vowed that it would be the last piece of land he would give up for an exception site.

This is the issue that needs addressing, and that is why I support the amendment. We will come on to other aspects of this particular site when we get to the amendments on community land trusts, but I raise this as an example of why the issue needs to be addressed. That is what the Minister needs to respond to and why it is so important.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Stoneham of Droxford

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, most of the relevant points have been made and I do not want to repeat what other noble Lords have said, but I have a simple question for the Minister.

Amendment 48A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, refers to the need to take into account,

“those over pension age, … those on below average incomes, and … those to whom it owes a statutory housing duty”.

Amendment 50, tabled by my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, refers to an exemption requirement for housing for,

“younger people; … older people; … people with special needs; or …people with disabilities”,

or where there is a proposal to build,

“a homeless hostel; … refuge accommodation; or … specialist housing”.

We have, this evening, repeatedly heard the case that starter homes are to be given priority over everything else. How will those that I have just listed be protected in the new regime which the Government are promoting? In other words, how can we be assured that the groups referred to and embodied in those two amendments will be provided for under a system which gives priority to starter homes? If the Minister can answer that question, she will be able to answer most of the issues raised in this debate.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, we have had a long debate. Though I am reluctant to detain the Committee for too long, I want to speak in favour of these amendments, particularly Amendments 48A, 50B and 50D, to which I put my name. I again draw the Committee’s attention to my interest as chair of Housing & Care 21.

We have to ask the Government: are we in this together on housing? The need to build more homes is something we all agree on but I contest the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young. I accept that a commitment has been made in the Conservative Party manifesto; I respect that, although I do not think it is right and I have some suspicions as to how that figure was snatched out of the ether and arrived at. The question is whether we will build more homes than we would have without this extra policy initiative.

I think the Government have—certainly the Conservative Party has—a problem with social housing and affordable housing for rent. That is why we have had a setback. We had a problem in the early years of the coalition in getting the Government to put more money into social housing investment. It happened only when the Chancellor became worried about the state of the economy, as far as I could see. At that point, we at last saw some initiatives that encouraged the building of social housing.

As has been admitted in this debate, we have now gone backwards. If we were really setting out to build more houses we would be building more for private ownership and more for social housing. We had begun to make progress on that at the end of the coalition Government—not enough, I accept, but we had made some. Frankly, we are now going to hit the buffers because of all the initiatives and impetuses behind starter homes and the promotion of home ownership. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said, starter homes will be at the expense of other forms of housing, and that will include social housing. The consequence is that we will build fewer houses than if we had really been in this together and planned to increase home ownership while maintaining a balance by being committed to social housing as well. As a consequence, there will be problems in terms of the design of homes and the communities we build, which will be lopsided and unbalanced. Future generations will come to regret that.

It has been made quite clear by the noble Lord, Lord Best, that there are other areas of need which the Government seem to be ignoring. We know that the retired population is increasing and we want to have more rightsizing. What initiatives will the Government use to encourage that process? Only this week, we have seen initiatives from the National Health Service, which recognises the importance of housing in health policy. I do not see where the Government will get the extra housing for the retired population.

It remains the case that homelessness is getting worse. I am sad to admit that it increased during the last years of the coalition. Which of these initiatives address that? Local communities should surely be given the flexibility to address some of those problems rather than go down a route that puts all the emphasis on home ownership. The other consequence will be that the people in real need will be driven into the private rented sector, which will compound our problem with the housing benefit bill because we will be paying out more.

I would also like to draw attention to the rural area, which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, covered in his remarks. I cannot think of a more critical area where community needs have to be very carefully planned and provided for if we are going to have balanced communities which feed into the social life of those communities. We have to give more attention to providing affordable homes to local people—we need to make that distinction. As he says—and this is another argument that we are not actually going to increase the number of homes that are going to be built—I know that landlords in my area will be very reluctant to give up their land at a reduced price if they think that in the future people will have the opportunity to make a profit out of that, rather than what they thought, that these homes were going to be used for local people in perpetuity for their social needs and those of the communities in which they live.

Everybody agrees that there is a problem with supply. If we are going to build more homes that actually meet the demand we have, we need more diversity, mix and balance. As well as helping private ownership, we have to give more attention to social housing. If we do not, we will have all the problems I have mentioned in terms of increasing pressure on homelessness and the encouragement to older people to rightsize being diminished, and therefore we will end up with a worse and unbalanced housing situation, when there was a real opportunity for all of us to be in this together.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Stoneham of Droxford

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

So we are having a debate on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours? That is fine. That is what I was expecting; I just hoped that we were not missing the Minister’s reply.

We are in favour of examining all forms of reform of political donations. The only point I would like to make to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is that I am not quite sure how gift aid would work. Obviously there would be a huge advantage to the Conservative Party with its big donations and the big tax relief it could get on them. That would be a major problem because it would disadvantage the Labour Party and it would disadvantage us. Noble Lords may laugh, but I wondered why the noble Lord was supporting it. I know why. The Conservative Party has worked out that a 40% rebate on £20 million gives it £8 million and the Labour Party’s £15 million gives it £6 million, so the Conservative Party has an advantage of £2 million. These are just rough figures.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I have never done this before: intervening on a speech just after I have spoken. I am being absolutely blunt and frank here. This was the argument I had with my own party when we were dealing with these matters on previous occasions. We should not consider the funding arrangements of other political parties. They are not our business. The Tories will always raise the money they need, because they have the donor base. The fact that they may gain from some tax concession should be irrelevant to other political parties which need to raise money. The noble Lord should not worry about what they get; we should be more worried about the funding of our own political parties. If they benefit, it is simply coincidental.