Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Karen Buck

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend highlights how this policy is about delivering for people on the ground. While Labour Members want to pontificate, we are going to stay focused on delivering homes for people across our country and here in the capital city of London.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

We need a policy to fit all parts of the country, including London. In inner London, however, starter homes will come in at £450,000. We have to speak the language of priorities. Is the Minister really telling us that a home that requires an income of £77,000 a year—more than an MP’s salary—is genuinely the best priority for public funds?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am tempted to use the inimitable phrase, “I refer the hon. Lady to the comments I made a few moments ago.” As I said earlier, if she looks at the evidence, she will find that the price a first-time buyer pays is actually quite different. I mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park; thanks to him, homes are already well below that price. The figure the hon. Lady mentioned is a cap; it is not the price at which these properties will be set—and I expect to see them much lower.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

I will just answer the previous intervention before I take one from the right hon. Gentleman.

Local authorities could also work with authorities around the income from higher-value homes that they may be able to use to deliver elsewhere. It is important to get that flexibility and to understand that different authorities of different parties want it.

I now turn to amendments 54, 55, 57 and 58, all of which I disagree with. Amendment 54 would make our policy to implement fairer social rents voluntary. It is, as my noble Friend Baroness Williams said in the other place, a blatant denial of the primacy of this House. Local authorities can already operate the policy on a voluntary basis, but we are not aware that any have done so. To put it simply, it is a wrecking amendment and this House should treat it as such.

The policy must also apply consistently, as it would not be right for tenants in certain areas to face possible rent increases while tenants in a neighbouring area do not. The amendment completely undermines the Government’s aim of putting in place a consistent approach and of using the funds raised to reduce the national deficit, which we inherited from the Labour party. It would substantially reduce the revenue that the policy would generate.

[Ms Buck]

Will the Minister give way?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am happy to give way. Perhaps the hon. Lady is going to apologise for the debt and deficit that her party left.

[Ms Buck]

I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that Westminster City Council, which, as usual, is in the vanguard of such things, announced in 2012 that it was extremely keen to introduce a version of pay to stay and to charge its higher-earning tenants additional rent. However, it has never done so because it has never found a way to introduce such a scheme that was not ridiculously bureaucratic and costly and that acted as a severe disincentive to work.

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Lady will be interested to hear what I have to say in a few minutes about how the policy will work in practice to ensure not only consistency, but that it always pays to work.

We have brought forward a package of amendments and statements of intent to ensure that the policy is fair and that it does not damage the incentive to find work and keep in work. In addition, we have committed to allow local authorities to retain reasonable administration costs, and my officials are working with the sector to establish an approach to implementation that would minimise costs.

Amendment 55 would set the amount of the taper at 10% on the face of the Bill. Our view is that a 10% taper is simply too low. Our preference is for a taper set at 20% or an extra 20p in rent for every pound earned above the income threshold. That would mean, for example, that a household earning over the £31,000 threshold would contribute just a few pounds a week in additional rent. The level recognises the importance of protecting work incentives, but it is a fairer contribution. It is important that we retain the flexibility to set out the detail of the taper in secondary legislation. We want to keep the position under review, and putting details on the face of the Bill would prevent us from doing so. We have confirmed that the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which I am sure will be welcomed by the House, so there will be another chance to debate the regulations before they come into force.

Amendment 57 would set higher income thresholds, which totally undermines the principle that social tenants on higher incomes should start to contribute a fairer level of rent once they earn more than £31,000—or £40,000 in London. We have listened to concerns about the policy and taken a number of steps as a result. There will be an automatic exemption for any household in receipt of housing benefit and universal credit. The definition of “household” will not include income from non-dependent children, such as an 18-year-old who is starting his first job. Certain state benefits such as tax credits, disability living allowance and personal independence payments will not count towards the calculation of income, and the income thresholds will be supported by a taper, which will ensure that households towards the start of the proposed income thresholds see their rent rise by only a few pounds each week.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Karen Buck

Monday 8th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)]

I believe that all tenants should have a safe place in which to live. In the Housing and Planning Bill, the Government have introduced the strongest ever set of measures to protect tenants and ensure that landlords provide good-quality, safe accommodation.

[Ms Buck]

According to a freedom of information inquiry that I carried out last year, only 14,000 of a total of 51,316 complaints made to councils about poor housing were subjected to a local authority environmental health assessment, and, on average, councils prosecuted only one rogue landlord every year. Is it not irrefutable that local authorities lack the resources, certainly, and the will, in some cases, to take action against rogue landlords? What possible grounds can the Minister have for resisting a modest change that would allow tenants to take legal action against landlords who let homes that are not fit for human habitation?

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Lady is right, in that local authorities should be using the powers that they have. As I have said, there is already a requirement for properties to be fit and proper, and she may wish to welcome the extra £5 million that we have added to the £6.7 million that we have already invested to support it. However, if she looks at the changes in the operation of fines in the Housing and Planning Bill, she will see that the amount of resources for local government will be beyond anything that we have ever seen before, and certainly beyond anything that the Labour Government ever did.

Right to Buy

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Karen Buck

Monday 12th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He has a good example in his local authority area of a housing association that is keen to build, and this scheme will allow it to access its assets to build more and to use that income to make sure it is building more homes to increase supply across our country.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

Listening to the Minister, one would almost think he had not presided over a collapse in homeownership in this country during the past few years. In inner-London areas we face the prospect of losing up to three quarters of our social homes, which has led even the leader of Conservative Westminster Council to say that this is going to lead to the loss of a swathe of social housing. It is all very well for the Minister to say that he is going to replace in London, but people do not just live in a city—they live in communities, they live near their work and they live near their children’s schools. Will all replacement homes be built within the same local authority, where council housing and housing association properties have been sold off?

[Brandon Lewis]

First, I say to the hon. Lady that the drop in house building that led to the drop in homeownership started under the Labour Government. In fact, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who is on the Labour Front Bench, said that he had no problem with a fall in homeownership, but I have a different view. This Government want to make sure that we drive up not only home building but homeownership. We will do anything we can to support that, and this deal that the housing associations have put forward will help to increase the supply of affordable homes right across our country, including in London.

Short Let Deregulation (London)

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Karen Buck

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

The Government, through the legislation we are considering, are taking forward proposals that will tackle out-of-date legislation from the 1970s. Section 25 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 makes it illegal for London residents to rent out their homes to visitors on a short-term basis. Londoners who want to rent out their homes for less than three months are required to apply for planning permission from the council. That burden does not apply anywhere else in the country. We want just to update that legislation, to give London residents the freedom to let their homes on a short-term, temporary basis without the unnecessary cost and bureaucracy of applying for planning permission. We also want to ensure that we maintain the important provisions for the protection of London’s housing supply and residential amenity. That goes directly to the point raised by the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), and I will come back to that in a few moments.

Section 25 provides that the use of a

“building, or any part of a building”

for “temporary sleeping accommodation” for less than 90 consecutive nights is a change of use, for which planning permission is required. London local authorities can take enforcement action against an unauthorised change of use. As a result, London residents failing to secure planning permission face a possible fine of up to £20,000 for each offence.

Clause 33 of the Deregulation Bill grants a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations in respect of short-term letting. Our intention is that regulations will set out the circumstances in which temporary sleeping accommodation in London would not require planning permission. It will also allow for the exclusion of particular residential premises, and residential premises in particular areas, from any relaxation of section 25.

We all know that the internet is creating a new world in which to live and do business. It has made it much easier for people to rent out their property; references have been made to Airbnb, for example. It allows residents to supplement their incomes and offer new experiences for consumers. Last summer, nearly 5 million overseas visitors came to the capital. Some of those visitors, as well as British residents, want to experience London as a local. That means staying with Londoners who live in London permanently, or in their homes while the resident is away on holiday. We know that thousands of London properties and rooms are currently advertised on such websites. However, each of them is potentially in breach of section 25 as it stands. There is uncertainty for householders as to whether their local authority will take planning enforcement action against them for unauthorised short-term letting.

[Ms Buck]

Does the Minister have evidence of local authorities taking enforcement action and fining home owners who simply let out their home for two weeks here and there, perhaps for a home swap or something similar?

[Brandon Lewis]

That is the point I was making. There is an uncertainty for residents if they do not know whether any given local authority would take action. If the local authority is not using that power, however, it will not miss it after the change in the legislation.

Planning legislation for the capital needs to catch up with our 21st-century way of living. Every year, thousands of visitors enjoy their holidays in Londoners’ homes. Such short-term letting already supports major events, such as tennis at Wimbledon. Our proposals will not only benefit London’s strong tourism industry by expanding the competitively priced accommodation offer; it will allow families to earn some extra income by making their home or spare room available to visitors. It offers an alternative to hotels and guest houses, so it can support the wider tourism industry. In addition, such accommodation helps those who are temporarily working in the capital or searching for a place to live by expanding the pool of competitively priced accommodation.

Residential homes provide a type of accommodation that is different from the average hotel or guest house. Renting a room in a person’s home, or renting their home while they are away, provides an opportunity to travel and live like a local, and it caters for a different type of client. Websites advertising householders’ rooms and homes indicate that a wide variety of accommodation is available in different locations, many of which are outside the central hotel zones.

[Brandon Lewis]

I suspect, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to support the Government’s proposals. If he looks back at my opening remarks, I think that that will deal with some of his concerns. I will go a bit further in a second.

London is a great city, as the hon. Member for Westminster North has outlined. Our proposed step forward gives Londoners the opportunity to be part of a huge industry and supplement their income. We want to be leaders, not followers, and we want to open up our great global city even further. Where other cities and countries may wish to shut down, we want to move forward.

I want to make it clear that through our reforms we want only to give London residents the freedom that is enjoyed in the rest of the country: to let out their homes on a short-term, temporary basis without the unnecessary cost and bureaucracy of applying for planning permission. We do not seek to provide new opportunities for short-term letting on a permanent or commercial basis. We fully recognise that London’s homes should not be lost to investors who will use them exclusively for short-term lets, and our reforms will not enable that. Through regulations, we want to provide certainty and consistency for residents in all London local authority areas. We want them to know when householders will be permitted temporarily to short-term let their property without the need for planning permission. The regulations we will introduce will clarify for London residents what is permissible, so they can be confident they are within the law. We will look to strike an appropriate balance between allowing freedom for occasional short-term letting by residents, as well as—this goes directly to the point made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter)—maintaining the important provisions of the existing legislation to protect London’s housing stock.

I know there are concerns that our deregulation of section 25 could lead to a loss of permanent housing stock for Londoners at a time when London needs more new homes. However, as we seek only to allow residents to let out their homes while they are away, those properties will not be lost to the short-term rental market from London’s permanent housing stock. We will not be providing new opportunities for short-term letting on a permanent or commercial basis.

[Ms Buck]

This is the heart of the worry. If it is difficult now for local authorities to enforce against properties they believe are part of the short-term letting sector when one merely has to prove that that is the case, will it not be far more difficult to enforce when the local authority has to demonstrate that the property has not been let for more than 90 days?