Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Lord Kerslake and Lord Lansley
Lord Kerslake
My apologies. I was simply trying to explain why I do not believe that this amendment cuts across the financial prerogative.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will just briefly add to what my noble friends have said. In the first instance, it is always important to remember that when the Commons sends us its reasons for disagreeing with your Lordships on an amendment, and financial privilege is invoked, as I understand it they are obliged not to add any other reason. That does not mean there is no other reason; it just means they are obliged only to state financial privilege. In truth, I think there were other reasons. Not only is financial privilege involved; there is a strong sense that the original amendment which was sent to the Commons, Amendment 47, considerably fettered the Secretary of State’s discretion in relation to the nature of the agreement that the Secretary of State would enter into with local authorities in terms of reducing the payment to support the replacement of the high-value housing sold with new affordable homes.
What I find very strange now is that what is being suggested to your Lordships in the first limb—that there must be “a new affordable home”—seems to add absolutely nothing new to what was sent to the other place from this House and has already been accepted in Amendment 44. Your Lordships will recall what Amendment 44 said about the agreement with the Secretary of State:
“Where the agreement is with a local housing authority outside Greater London, it must include terms and conditions requiring the authority to ensure that at least one new affordable home is provided for each old dwelling”.
That is therefore already accepted and established, so it seems to me that the first limb of the amendment to the Motion—Amendment 47B—is redundant, as its provisions are already incorporated.
This is really about Amendment 47C, which goes back to the point of fettering the Secretary of State’s discretion and requiring closely linked, like-for-like replacement as opposed to arrangements being made between the Secretary of State and the local authority. This stuff about demonstrating to the Secretary of State does not really change that—if it means anything, it means the Secretary of State may enter into an agreement and may not. That power is in the Bill already, so why would we need to change the Bill to make that happen?
I will also just add to what my noble and learned friend was just saying. This matter relates exclusively to England, and in the other place they voted to reject Amendment 47—this point itself—by 279 to 158, which is a very substantial majority indeed.
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Lord Kerslake and Lord Lansley
Lord Kerslake
Perhaps I may come in very briefly. I wish to make three points. First, in any process you need a balance between prescription and flexibility. If the intent is to achieve one for one, that should be the nature of the agreements that are formed with local authorities. When the statutory instruments are published, that provision may well be included. If the Minister says, “I guarantee that one for one will be in the statutory instrument”, we may not need this amendment. But in the absence of such a guarantee, there is no mechanism for knowing with confidence that the Government’s intent is that one for one can be delivered.
Secondly, in relation to capital borrowing, in everything other than housing, local authorities have the ability to borrow prudentially. As was said this morning, they could borrow to build three swimming pools. The one area where they are capped is housing. Therefore, if you do not fully fund the replacement, you have to have an ability to lift the cap to find the necessary capital borrowing. That is the reason why that provision is included in the amendment.
Lord Lansley
I do not dispute that that is the reason it is in the amendment; I just think that it is wrong. We are not in the business of giving additional borrowing powers to local authorities but of releasing value from high-value assets and determining to what extent that is used to fund the discounts for housing association tenants buying their homes—or, on the other hand, to provide for replacement housing. The first point is very straightforward: if one wants to do this, Amendment 66B would include it in the wrong place; it is too inflexible and would introduce too many rigid criteria.
When the Government begin to create agreements with local housing authorities for replacement properties, I think that many of us would share the wish that, in the right places, where agreements are entered into—which will, of course, not be everywhere—those agreements should look for at least one for one; otherwise, why is the local authority being given that reduction in its payment if it is not in recognition that there is a greater need for housing there than for that money to be made available to housing associations through purchase of the properties by their tenants? It seems to me that the theory is: do you take this into Clause 72 and do you make it a minimum requirement of a one-for-one replacement? That is an issue to look at. I certainly do not think you need a new clause to do it.