Localism Bill
Debate between Lord Whitty and Lord Taylor of Goss Moor
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend putting forward these amendments, and particularly Amendment 22. I should like to chase the Minister for some clarity about what seems to me a fundamental issue in the Government’s reforms. There are two forms of provision in the development of social housing—long-term social housing at low rents for security and an intermediate affordable rented model. There is something of an unanswered question and for clarity it would help if Ministers could explain their long-term intention in how we are approaching these changes.
It seems to me that—this is reflected in Amendment 22—where there is clear, long-term need, it continues to make complete sense to have a model of housing that is secure and has low rents, for which the primary government support system is through a capital subsidy. We should be looking in the long run to ensure that there is adequate provision in terms of numbers of social houses to meet long-term needs. It makes no sense for the state to do this otherwise. That does not provide adequate security to individuals and it comes at high cost to the state if higher levels of rent are paid. In pure value-for-money terms, it makes sense to adopt the traditional social housing model.
I believe that, for people who are transitioning through periods of need, it makes more sense to have a much more flexible model, in which the subsidy may well come in the form of temporary help with rent—that involves a benefit system rather than a huge up-front capital subsidy and then a low rent. Very similar individuals in similar circumstances can either get the gold standard trump card of social housing or they may be in the rented sector. It is not obvious what the distinction is other than the circumstances in which people went into that housing. It is also the case that it makes no sense, when we are short of such housing, for property that has had a huge up-front capital subsidy to be permanently made available to people whose needs may radically change over time and who may not need it.
I can see the argument for two models but I do not see the Government being sufficiently explicit about the path by which the right people will get the right kind of offers and the circumstances in which they will get the security that they need if their needs are long term, in the way described by my noble friend. The definition in Amendment 22 looks perfectly reasonable, but it may be that it can be done better or that the Government think there are other routes for doing it. It is deeply important to define this and debate it properly, understanding not only the transition but where the Government ultimately want to take us. If we understand that, we will have a clearer idea of the long-term social housing need in this country. We can play that against those with such long-term needs. We will understand better the role of intermediate affordable housing and where that plays into the equation in the long term.
It looks to me that, without such a definition, we will be left with deep uncertainty for individuals in long-term need who want security. There will be deep uncertainty in terms of the individuals who get housing—some may get a social housing offer or an affordable housing offer, but there will be no clarity about who gets what. It is more likely that it will depend on what is available at any given time rather than on need. In particular, on the social housing model for those in long-term need, which is the best form of delivery, we will be giving up assets as they transfer over to affordable rent without any clarity on the numbers that we need in this country, the places where we need them or the long-term strategy.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, my name is down for two amendments in this group. I strongly agree with most of what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that this is the point where we are asking the Government to set out their long-term strategy. I am afraid that once they do, I think I will deeply disagree with it.
I appreciate and understand that existing tenants in their lifetime tenancies are by and large protected from this change. Therefore, any change and ultimate destination is pretty long term. It also seems to me that the Government’s long-term ambition is to abolish long-term and lifetime tenures. I can understand the temptation for them to do so when there is a shortage of affordable housing and great pressures on the existing stock but it is the wrong temptation, largely for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. The role of council housing, not in its absolute origins but for most of its existence, has been to provide for people who cannot get on the housing ladder a degree of security and stability and to live in and work for a community in which to bring up their children.
I appreciate that there are some failures in that but there are also some significant successes. It has also meant that in some areas both rented and owner-occupied private sector properties can put the market price well out of the reach of most people. It has also allowed us to have mixed neighbourhoods in areas that would otherwise become ghettos for the rich. Just to take a random example, I mention the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Because of the legacy of Victorian philanthropists and some of their predecessors in what were two boroughs, there is a significant amount of social housing in an otherwise extremely rich area. Is that to be gradually phased out for people who are not regarded as exceptions but as part of the community? The stability of community has existed in many of the estates there, in other London boroughs, and in places such as Bristol, Newcastle, and so on because we have had long-term and lifetime tenancies. To abandon that prospect and effectively in the long term to turn the whole of social housing into safety net and emergency provision is to run the risk of destabilising communities which have hitherto been relatively stable and to ensure that only the very, very poor and those falling within the kind of exemptions specified in Amendment 22 can live in a lot of areas in our country, particularly our inner cities.
That is not a recipe for a stable and coherent society. The Government should hesitate before going completely down that road. There are some brakes on that provision in this group of amendments. On the amendment suggesting that flexible tenancies should be a minimum of five rather than two years, I cannot understand the Government’s position. They are telling us that in practice five years probably will be the minimum except in exceptional circumstances, so why cannot we write the provision that way round in the Bill? It could say that there would normally be a minimum of five years except in exceptional circumstances which could then be defined in secondary legislation, and which would be subject to a degree of quality control by council decisions. If we move into flexible tenancies throughout, that would at least put a brake on the destabilising effect of potentially having only two-year tenancies, which does not give a couple, a family or even an individual a lot of security.
I would like to be more radical than that. My final amendment in this group suggests that there should be a limit, at least at this stage, on the degree of movement towards flexible tenancies, thus preserving, for the most part, that the default position for those who are entitled to new tenancies under these provisions are limited. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on his exemptions. The most vulnerable people should certainly be exempt from this provision, but I would make the exemption wider or put a limit on the degree of progress towards destroying the stability that social housing has provided for many in our population.
As I said in the earlier debate, other sectors of housing provision are in crisis and overstretched, and likely to be so for a considerable time. That leads to instability and to a change in relations between the generations. If people cannot get on the housing ladder until they are 40, they will not be in a position to help their sons and daughters until they are well past retirement age—or at least the current retirement age. Therefore, there will be a need for more family accommodation, because people in many parts of the country will not able to get on to the housing ladder, or in many cases meet the rent for decent accommodation in the private rented sector.
Social housing should continue to provide that asset. The terms on which it does so may vary, but the comprehensive move away from life tenancies to flexible tenancies that may have a length of as little as two years would destroy a significant element of housing provision and opportunities in this country. I appreciate that it will take time to get to that position, but it should not be the final position. Therefore, my amendment in this group suggests that only 25 per cent of households should be moved to flexible tenancies. One could argue about the percentage, and obviously individual councils will take different percentages. However, there needs to be a maximum, otherwise we are laying down significant problems for the future at a time when other sectors of the housing market are in such a dire state and when the pressure on housing as a whole will increase for at least the next 20 or 30 years.