Housing

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Hilary Benn

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes that the Government has failed to tackle the acute housing shortage which is central to the cost of living crisis and over the last three years has presided over the lowest level of new homes built since the 1920s, with home ownership falling, rents at record highs and rising faster than wages and a record five million people in the queue for social housing; further notes that net housing supply under this Government has fallen to its lowest level since records began, and that affordable housing supply dropped in the last year by 26 per cent, homes built for social rent dropped to a 20-year low, while there has been a 104 per cent increase in in-work housing benefit claimants since 2009; believes that the Government should take action to tackle the housing shortage; and calls on the Government to boost housing supply by reforming the development industry and introducing measures to tackle landbanking, bringing forward plans to deliver a new generation of New Towns and Garden Cities and giving local authorities a new right to grow to deliver the homes their communities need.

Before I begin, let me say that I thought that Mr Speaker spoke for all of us earlier in his eloquent and moving tribute to our dear friend and comrade Paul Goggins. His death is a tragedy. He was as decent, compassionate, principled and, I have to say, cheerful a man as one could have the privilege to meet, and we will miss him dreadfully. Our hearts go out to Wyn and to their three children, Matthew, Theresa and Dominic.

The fact that we face a housing crisis is common ground across the House. Why do we face that crisis? Because people are living longer and staying in their own homes, which is a good thing; because our population is rising; because every relationship breakdown increases the demand for housing; but principally because, as a society, we have not been building enough homes. Whether we look at starts, completions or net housing supply, the failure to build over the past three years could not be more starkly obvious.

It is good to see the Secretary of State taking part in today’s debate. By my count, he has participated in at least four major housing launches, and his Department has made nearly 400 announcements about housing in the past three years. I have brought some of them along. They are headed “Building more homes”, “Welcome rise in affordable housing”, “Plans to boost UK housebuilding”, and “Prevention is best cure for homelessness”. This is the question that the Secretary of State should answer: is he proud of his record over those three years?

The Secretary of State’s Department tells us that an average of 232,000 new households will be formed in England each year over the next two decades. However, in the three years for which he has been in charge, the number of homes completed in England has fallen to its lowest level since Stanley Baldwin was first Prime Minister. The number of affordable homes built fell by 29% last year, and the number of social homes built fell to its lowest level for more than 20 years.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I do not know whether my right hon. Friend noticed last week that house prices in Hammersmith and Fulham rose by 25% last year, and that the average cost of a property in the borough is now £693,000. Will he join me in condemning Hammersmith and Fulham council, which is selling off council homes by auction as they become vacant, and has just entered into a joint venture with Stanhope, a private developer, to empty and demolish council estates and replace them with market or near-market housing?

[Hilary Benn]

I shall come to the issue of house prices in London later in my speech. However, the situation that my hon. Friend has described in his own borough should concern Members in all parts of the House. Given the need for more social homes in London—and, indeed, in the rest of the country—it is hard to understand why a responsible council should take such action.

The number of housing starts fell by 11% last year, and, although it is now rising, it is still far from where it needs to be. Net housing supply is at its lowest level since the statistics began to be collected a decade ago.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Hilary Benn

Monday 5th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

That is an extremely interesting suggestion by my right hon. Friend, and only those on the Government Front Bench can say whether that is the case or not.

Clauses 2 and 3, which I do not think the Secretary of State mentioned, would allow the planning inspectorate to award costs. What is the purpose of this? Perhaps the Minister could say when he winds up. How can he assure us that it will not turn into a tax on local democratic decision making? Why should the Planning Inspectorate want to impose costs of its own volition, when developers can already ask it to do so under the law as it currently stands?

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the purpose of clause 2 is possibly similar to that of clause 1, which is to blackmail local authorities into giving in to the worst property developers, and that this is a belated compliment to the Conservative Property Forum, which has given £4 million to the Conservative party over the past few years?

[Hilary Benn]

I can only say to my hon. Friend that I do not know whether there is any connection between the two things, but it is quite an interesting pair of clauses. What are they for? Why do Ministers apparently want to make it easier for the Planning Inspectorate to fine councils for the decisions that they have made?

Clause 5 proposes significantly to weaken the contribution that section 106 agreements make to the much needed provision of affordable housing. If section 106 really was the cause of stalled housing developments, why does the clause focus only on the affordable housing requirements, rather than other section 106 requirements—for example, contributing to transport, other infrastructure or new schools? I ask because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) pointed out, the National Housing Federation tells us that 35,000 affordable homes are provided each year because of section 106 agreements, yet the Secretary of State failed to make the case that the lack of house building is because of the affordable housing element.

Where is the evidence? This will be a familiar theme in this debate. We are told that there are 1,200 sites and 75,000 homes that are stalled. Apparently the figure comes from something called the Glenigan database. When I asked the planning Minister if he would publish it so that we could see for ourselves the information on which the statement is based, he refused to do so. So we cannot see—[Hon. Members: “Why?”] Apparently it was something to do with commercial confidentiality, but are we as Members of the House not entitled to see the evidence base on which the policy is allegedly founded?

Perhaps that is why, when the planning Minister was sensibly asked by the Select Committee how many of these sites were stalled because of section 106 requirements, he came over all vague.

He said:

“It is very difficult to say. It is quite hard to say why nothing is happening.”

Let us look at what others have to say about section 106. The chief executive of the Homes and Communities Agency stated in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who chairs the Committee:

“We are not aware of any current issues relating to section 106 agreement on the very small number due to start on site this financial year.”

What about the National Housing Federation? It has stated: “No evidence has been provided to suggest that planning obligations are routinely stalling development.”

What about the Council of Mortgage Lenders? It has stated:

“We are not convinced that section 106 obligations are necessarily the key sticking point”.

Well, if it is difficult to quantify and really hard to say why nothing is happening, and if the HCA does not think it is a problem, the National Housing Federation does not think it is a problem and the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which ought to know, does not think it is a problem, what is the purpose of clause 5? Everyone knows what the real problem is: people cannot get mortgages or raise deposits, so developers are not building houses because they do not think that they will be able to sell them if they do.

The Government admit that clause 5 will reduce the number of affordable homes built, which is why they have come up with an extra 300 million quid. If that really is the cause of the problem, I do not for the life of me understand why the Government do not just approach the developers on the 1,200 sites and offer them money to get them moving and bring forward the affordable housing numbers that were previously agreed. To reduce the number of affordable homes through the Bill and then come up with £300 million to try to replace the lost homes in an alternative way seems to me to be an extraordinarily roundabout way of addressing the problem. The truth is that everyone wants to get stalled sites moving. As the Secretary of State has acknowledged, to be fair, many local authorities have demonstrated that they are perfectly willing to enter into negotiations with developers in order to vary the conditions relating to affordable housing because they, too, want to get the homes built, and Leeds is one example of that.

The other thing that is puzzling about clause 5 is this: what will it give developers that they do not already have? I hope that the Minister will answer this when he responds. Under the existing arrangements, could not a developer who wants to change the affordable housing requirements on an existing permission simply put in a new application with the lower figure and then, if it is turned down by the council, go to the Planning Inspectorate on appeal and cite the new provisions on viability set out in paragraph 173 of the national planning policy framework?

What is the problem that this clause is trying to solve, and will it work? I doubt it. This is my last point on section 106 agreements. For a measure that is supposed to speed up movement on stalled sites, it might result, as the Royal Town Planning Institute has pointed out, in the very opposite. A developer that hopes to reduce the affordable housing obligation will now have a clear incentive to wait for the Bill to reach the statute book rather than entering into negotiations with the local authority—in other words, delay.

Local Government Finance

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Hilary Benn

Wednesday 8th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

Sadly, when it comes to the Liberal Democrats, not much has changed at all. That is a pattern of behaviour with which many of us in the House are all too familiar.

We have discussed the figures, now let us turn to the consequences of all this. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised that he would protect Sure Start. Members may recall that he took the former Prime Minister to task for suggesting that that might not happen. What has actually happened? A reply given by Ministers just before Christmas shows that there are now 124 fewer Sure Start centres than there were when the coalition was formed. So much for the Prime Minister’s pledge.

DCLG figures show that last year 93 out of 152 councils —61% of them—cut spending on providing meals on wheels for the elderly compared with their spend in 2009-10, and 55 authorities cut spending on adult social care, although all of us know our authorities face increasing pressures in that area. Also, 75 councils reduced spending on equipment and adaptations for disabled and elderly adults, and according to another survey, 88% of councils were increasing their care charges.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend mentioned Sure Start. Conservative Hammersmith and Fulham council has cut the Sure Start budget by more than 45% in one year. Perhaps its councillors did not hear the Minister saying there should be no cuts in front-line services. I thought that all Members recognised that Sure Start is an initiative that in the long run will improve educational achievement and cut youth offending, and that it is therefore a good and efficient investment, yet almost 50% of its budget has been cut in one year by this authority.

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend makes that point very forcefully. I wonder whether Hammersmith and Fulham will still be the Secretary of State’s favourite council once he becomes aware of what it has been doing, in marked contrast to what the Prime Minister of the party it supports said at the time of the election—but then that is sadly familiar, too.

We cannot get much more front line than making sure old people have a hot meal every day or get their shopping done, or helping people to remain in their own home by building a ramp or putting a shower on the ground floor, so whatever the Minister of State was thinking when he answered an earlier question, or whatever the Secretary of State was thinking in December when he described the draft settlement as

“enough to safeguard the most vulnerable, protect taxpayers’ interests and the front-line services they rely on”,

I would gently say to them that they must recognise the damage that such comments do to the credibility of DCLG Ministers. Every time they say such things councillors, officers and people in local communities look at each other and ask, “Don’t they have any idea of what is actually going on in the world we have to live in?”

Business of the House (Thursday)

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Hilary Benn

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. To answer her very direct question, I fear that we will not have enough time to examine that, and many other aspects.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Notwithstanding the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister has just said on Channel 4 that his conscience is clear—so he would presumably like to debate this subject at length—does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason why this debate is being curtailed is to protect the Liberal Democrats? The clue to that lies in what Chris Davies MEP says in his blog:

“Splits weaken parties, and sometimes destroy them. The reputation of the Liberal Democrat brand is being undermined with each passing hour as the impression grows stronger that on the issue of tuition fees we are not only divided but clueless…In short, we are creating the impression not just of being weak, but of being a joke.”

We should share that joke with this House, if we had sufficient time to debate this issue properly.

[Hilary Benn]

The point that my hon. Friend has just made illustrates clearly why we need more time tomorrow to examine the position of the Liberal Democrats, in all their splendour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I will respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) before I take any further interventions. She raises precisely the type of matter that needs to be explored properly and fully in the debate tomorrow. The fact that we will have inadequate time means that we run the risk of its not being addressed.

[Mr Slaughter]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I was about to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter).

[Mr Slaughter]

As the debate goes on, does it not become obvious how grotesquely short five hours is? It took the Liberal Democrats an hour and a half in Committee Room 11 yesterday to narrow down their voting options to four. It will take five hours for the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to explain the different positions that he has taken in interviews over the past week. My constituents want us to get on to the real issue, which will not happen in a five-hour debate.

[Hilary Benn]

It certainly will not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

It certainly does. As my hon. Friend says, there is a serious issue here. If the public do not think that we have properly considered the matter, it will not build their trust and confidence in Parliament, and it certainly will not build their trust and confidence in the Government—it will damage it.

[Mr Slaughter]

Does my right hon. Friend know that the Deputy Prime Minister is now on Sky News saying that he would love to get rid of university tuition fees, but that he lives in an imperfect world? He says that he hopes that tuition fees will go in the future and blames the Labour party for not supporting him in the past. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party would be happy to vote with him tomorrow against the motion? Should the Deputy Prime Minister not be—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Slaughter]

I am sorry that the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) had the discourtesy to interrupt me in that way. The point I wished to make is that it is a discourtesy to the House for the Deputy Prime Minister to be on television doing a mea culpa and trying pathetically to justify himself, rather than being here and explaining why we have only five hours to debate the matter.

[Hilary Benn]

Indeed. Given the number of things that the Deputy Prime Minister has had to say about the tuition fee increase that he intends to vote for tomorrow, the very least he could do is to come into the debate. I hope that he might be able to participate, because many people would like to hear how he explains the change in attitude—the 180° turn—that he has performed in a very short space of time.