Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Caroline Lucas and Stephen Hammond(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Stephen Hammond
I hope that the Minister will clarify that point, but the key thing is the possibility of new longer tenancies, especially for elderly people, which deals with the point that the hon. Gentleman raised earlier.
I support amendment 112. Many Members have spoken about hotspots and affordability, so I will not rehearse those arguments, but suffice it to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who previously tabled such an amendment, has been leading the debate on the matter. The right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) talked about pulling the wool over Londoners’ eyes. I will not challenge his statistics, some of which were questionable, but the key thing that Londoners need to remember about the amendment is that it is a two-for-one provision, whereas amendment 89 represents a one-for-one provision. On that basis alone, Londoners would be wise to support amendment 112, which I am delighted that the Minister, having listened to the arguments, has brought forward today. I hope that the House will support that amendment in the Lobby later.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Many of us have said repeatedly that we have a major housing crisis and that not only is the Bill a missed opportunity to take the necessary urgent action, but it will make a bad situation worse.
My new clause 39, which I plan to press to a vote, would draw on the work done to establish a nationally agreed living wage level—that agreed by the Living Wage Foundation, not the pale imitation the Government like to call a living wage but which is nothing of the sort—and establish a living rent commission, adopting and linking to the principles behind the living wage commission, to calculate what a genuinely affordable level of rent in different places would look like, bearing in mind other costs of living and wage levels. It could also incorporate other factors, such as tenancy security, by taking into account the average length of tenancy in a given area.
Just as the living wage is demonstrably good for employers, employees, society as a whole and the local economy, so too could a living rent lead to significant benefits for all. To best understand what those might be, I hope the House will bear with me while I remind colleagues of the scale of the crisis in Brighton and Hove. As others have said, the problem is by no means limited to London.
Research released by HomeLet today reveals that tenants in Brighton and Hove, where my constituency is based, along with those in Bristol, suffered the worst rent rises of anywhere in Britain last year. Landlords raised prices by an average of 18%, meaning that Brighton and Hove has become only the second city in the country where rents have passed the £1,000-a-month barrier. These record rent rises mean that a typical flat in the city now costs £1,078 a month and that the average earner has to put aside 65% of their salary just to pay for a typical two-bed flat. That is simply untenable.
Given that Brighton and Hove has one of the biggest private rented sectors in the UK—about 30% of the housing stock is in the hands of private landlords—the impact of such rent rises is widely and deeply felt. High rents in the private rented sector have an inevitable knock-on effect on rents in the so-called affordable housing sector, too, and the cost is disproportionately borne by individuals and the state. People on low incomes are going without food and heating to pay rents. People who grew up in the city are having to move away from friends, family and communities to afford enough space to have children. A 2012 assessment of affordable housing need identified 88,000 households in Brighton and Hove—72%—that could not afford to buy or rent without some subsidy or spending a disproportionate level of their income on housing costs. The chief executive of Brighton Housing Trust, Andy Winter, has warned that by April 2017, when the local housing allowance changes in the autumn statement come into effect, 75% of its properties will be unaffordable for under-35s, meaning people will have nowhere to go.
New clause 39 would tackle some of those problems head on. A living rent commission would consider the facts and recommend a reliable and fair way of determining an affordable rent level. For example, it would consider whether we need two different living rent levels—one for London and one for elsewhere—as happens with the living wage, or whether, as seems more likely, it should be more localised, and, if so, on what basis. It would require the commission to undertake that work in conjunction with providers, landlords and tenants, and then report to the Government. In essence, it commits to nothing other than trying accurately to define the much bandied term “affordable”, which has effectively been rendered meaningless given that council homes have been sold to housing associations, which are now raising funds by increasing rents on re-lets from social housing at a rate of up to 80% of market rates. That is what counts for affordable at the moment, yet it is nothing of the kind.
I add a word of caution: a living rent is not a magic panacea. The underlying reasons for our local and national housing crises are many and varied, and so too are the solutions. We need wholesale reform to address insecurity, inequalities between owners and private renters, decency standards and the better use of public subsidy, as well as affordability. No one measure will work in isolation—it must be part of a broader programme—but the new clause would introduce a solution that could start to have a significant impact on all these problems, and it has not yet been given much consideration in our debates. It goes further than the so-called smart rent controls that some Members advocate. Such controls would link rent levels to inflation and would certainly be a step in the right direction. Capping rents is a step further and is usually linked to local incomes or could be set at a certain percentage more than social rents.
That could help prevent costs from spiralling further out of control, which would be welcomed by the tenants I see in my surgeries who are struggling with the cost of the private rented sector, but given that rents are already so high, even capping them at those levels would offer tenants only limited protection. For the renters in Brighton, Pavilion who are already forced to set aside 65% of their income for rent, it would mean rents not getting any worse, but it would not mean their getting better or becoming affordable or sustainable. They are the result of a market utterly out of control and in need of genuine reform to bring them in line with wages and the cost of living. They need better to reflect what people can afford to pay in rent while maintaining a decent quality of life.
I acknowledge that some see capping and controlling rents as controversial and that there are instances where such policies have had perverse effects, but there are also many instances where they have worked, and a commission would help us learn the lessons from different models to develop one that might work here. Regulators in other countries agree that rent controls can be part of the solution, especially when taken alongside other positive measures. In Sweden, rents in the private sector are not allowed to be more than 105% of rents in equivalent accommodation owned by a municipal housing company. It is a stable private rented sector in which the quality of repairs and maintenance is good and tenants and landlords alike benefit from secure, indefinite tenancies. Indefinite tenancies and rent controls are credited with giving Germany the most stable private rented sector in the world, alongside the US. France, which has rent controls and more secure long-term tenancies than we do, has a growing private rented sector.
Understandably, there will be concerns about the impact on landlords and, in turn, the effect on supply. What happens if landlords cannot afford to take reduced rents, meaning that housing standards plummet or properties are sold out of the rental market? A living rent commission would model all those possibilities and risks and take them into account when making its rent level recommendations. In the meantime, it is worth noting that a recent survey of landlords found that 77% were in employment; that 60% earned more than £2,000 a month from their employment; and that the 79% of landlords who controlled 61% of all privately rented dwelling earned less than a quarter of their income from those rents. In other words, landlords tend to have reliable sources of income other than rent. We also know that many have bought property as an investment or, more commonly, as a pensions supplement.
If Ministers or the Opposition are worried about the finances of those landlords, I humbly suggest they commit to a secure living pension for all that adequately covers the cost of living. The example from countries such as France suggests that to link a particular policy—say rent control—to shrinkage of the private sector is flawed. With the right policy mix, rent controls can be part of a growing private rented sector in which standards are high. As a final word on landlords, I imagine that many of them will be keen to demonstrate their ethics and, just as forward-thinking employers have backed the living wage, many landlords will voluntarily adopt a living rent for their properties.
Inter-City Rail Investment
Debate between Caroline Lucas and Stephen Hammond(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) on securing this important debate. I apologise, as others have, for the fact that I shall discuss a line that connects to London. I accept his broader point that we should not be so southern-centric, but I hope he will forgive me, given that my constituency depends a lot on the line between Brighton and London.
I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby), who is not in his place—I hope this is an area on which we can have cross-party agreement—that the current rail system is failing our constituents in Brighton and Hove. The Brighton-to-London commuters I meet almost every day are, without exception, frustrated and angry about the poor quality of the service that they pay through the nose to use. It is a huge amount of money and, as has been said, the cost just went up again earlier this month. An annual season ticket between Brighton and London Victoria is nearly £4,000; to be fair, there would be £28 change, but that is still a huge amount. What do people get for their £4,000? The main line from Brighton is in dire trouble. It struggles and creaks through inadequate capacity.
Last month I attended a Network Rail event on the future of the Brighton main line to make the case for more capacity between the capital and Brighton. The connection between the two cities is critical to my constituents and we do not want to wait for the crumbs from the table. Many Members have said that this is not a debate about HS2 and it certainly is not, but I think we should remind ourselves of the amount of money that can be found when the political will is there to invest in our rail infrastructure. I would far rather that that money was invested in the general rail systems on which so many of our constituents depend, rather than what I see as pretty much a massively expensive vanity project that will not deliver the gains that we need.
Brighton is a dynamic, internationally successful city and a major tourist destination, but it needs more investment in its rail lines: far too often the city is cut off because of problems at East Croydon or elsewhere on the line. We need some real vision and commitment to invest to get Brighton the second London line that we so desperately need. It is essential to have not only increased capacity, but a fast alternative route for passengers at times of disruption.
In October, Baroness Kramer, the Transport Minister in the other place, said:
“It is anticipated that Network Rail will provide a copy of its Brighton Main Line Pre-Report…to this Department before the end of the year. It will include…the potential role of new line schemes, including Lewes to Uckfield.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 2013; Vol. 748, c. WA166.]
Have Ministers received that report, and if so when will it be made public so that we can see it? In the autumn statement, the Chancellor said that he will accelerate the Network Rail study into improvements in the Brighton main line. Is that the same pre-report that was supposed to have been done by December, or is it an additional study? Weary commuters would welcome some clarification. Either way, we need to know the exact official terms of reference of the report and when we will get to see it. It is critical that the study should be a thorough review of capacity between the Sussex coast and London, covering all the options to end the chaos that we so regularly experience on this critical rail artery into London.
As well as talking about the specific needs of Brighton, including for a Brighton main line 2, I will say a few words about this country’s broader rail system. I believe that it is failing us, which is unforgivable in the sense that there is an alternative to the overcrowded, unreliable, overpriced and fragmented private services that we have to put up with. We could have an integrated, publicly owned and run railway that does not waste money on profit, and there is a model for doing that gradually and affordably.
Despite the standard mantra that privatisation saves money, the cost to the public purse of running the railways has risen by a factor of between two and three since they were sold off. The report “Rebuilding Rail” from the Transport for Quality of Life group makes clear the key reasons for that increase, which include high interest payments to keep Network Rail’s debts off the Government balance sheet—the Government have recently been made to put those debts on the books—as well as debt write-offs, costs arising from the fragmentation of the rail system into many organisations, profit margins of complex tiers of contractors and subcontractors, and dividend payments to private investors.
The only way to sort out that mess and waste, as well as the rising fares, overcrowding and the rest is for the state to take back control of the railways. That is why I am actively campaigning for them to be brought back into public ownership through my private Member’s Bill, the Railways Bill. I hope that the official Opposition will make it clear in their response whether they might back that Bill. If we want to improve our inter-city services, we have to nail the myth that buying back assets that have been sold off would be too expensive. The step-by-step approach in my Bill would allow the assets of the railways to be reacquired for the public at minimal cost, with substantial ongoing savings over time as franchises expire or companies break the terms of their franchise agreements. There is strong current evidence that it is better for passengers, railways and taxpayers when franchises are in public hands.
The Minister has been chuntering—if I may use that word—during my speech. I have not picked up what he has said, but I suspect that he is not entirely in agreement with me. I challenge him about the east coast main line. He put some facts and figures to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), but, frankly, they are misleading. The east coast main line was brought back into public hands because of market failure, but it is the UK’s most successful rail franchise. Its passenger satisfaction levels are the highest on record, and it pays millions back to the taxpayer, as opposed to most other train companies, which deliver millions to shareholders.
The Minister mentioned punctuality, so let us look at that. The facts show that the punctuality of the east coast main line is 0.1% different from that of the west coast main line: on the east coast main line, with very little Government investment, it is 82.8%, but on the west coast main line, with massive Government investment, it is 82.9%. That seems to suggest that on overall efficiency, the east coast main line is doing very well.
The Office of Rail Regulation agrees with me. It says clearly that the east coast main line is the most cost-efficient line. Even the Financial Times says that it is
“the most efficiently run rail franchise in terms of its reliance on taxpayer funding”.
It receives the lowest level of Government funding.
However much the Minister chunters, there is plenty of evidence—this Government like to say that they are an evidence-led Government—from the east coast main line that bringing rail back into public hands works. It is precisely the threat of a good example that makes the Government want to sell it off as quickly as possible, so that it is not there as a standing embarrassment to the rest of their rail policy. It really does beggar belief that the Government want to re-privatise the line.
Stephen Hammond
Let us look at the evidence if that is what the hon. Lady wants to do. She should know that the rolling stock costs for the east coast main line came in at £85 million in 2012, whereas the bill for Virgin was £302 million. That is a substantial difference. The access charge costs are substantially lower and are likely to rise. Those are two pieces of evidence that place question marks over her line that it is the most efficient railway line.
Caroline Lucas
It is not just my line. As I have said, it is the line of the Office of Rail Regulation. I would suggest that there is cherry-picking going on in the figures that are being presented. There are questions over what the start time is and over how much of the responsibility for the costs can be laid at the door of Directly Operated Railways and how much at the door of the previous private franchises, given the lack of investment that went in earlier. My position stands strongly and I am backed up by independent regulators and others.
If the Government really want to make savings and to improve our transport network for everyone, they should recognise that privatisation has failed and bring railways back into public ownership as the franchises expire. According to calculations in the “Rebuilding Rail” report, reuniting the railways under public ownership could save more than £1 billion a year of taxpayers’ money. To put that figure in context, if all unnecessary costs were eliminated and the resulting savings were used entirely to reduce fares—I am not saying that that would necessarily be the best thing, but it gives one a sense of what we are talking about—it would equate to across the board cuts of 18%. Fares that are price regulated because of their social importance could be cut substantially more.
Under public ownership, all the public money that is invested in the railways could be used to deliver a better service for passengers, while also achieving wider social and environmental goals, rather than to line the pockets of private shareholders. Train travel could once again be a pleasure and something to be proud of. That is the kind of bright future that I want for our railways. I urge Ministers to wake up to the potential of public investment in our inter-city infrastructure and to look at the evidence clearly and objectively, rather than cherry-picking the figures, as I fear the Minister has done this afternoon.