Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Grant Shapps and Nick Raynsford
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
16. What assessment he has made of the difference between the number of (a) new homes being built and (b) units qualifying for the new homes bonus; and if he will make a statement. [R]
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)
The new homes bonus is calculated in respect of net additions to the effective housing stock, including new build, conversions and empty homes brought back into use.
Mr Raynsford
I draw attention to my interests in the register. I am glad the Minister is beginning to look at the discrepancy in his figures. According to the written answer he gave me on 29 February, in nine local authority areas in England the number of homes qualifying in 2011 for the affordable housing component of the new homes bonus exceeded the total number of homes for which new homes bonus was awarded. As this is clearly total nonsense, will the Minister explain what is going on? Were his statisticians having an off day, or is this another case of the Government not having a clue what they are doing?
Grant Shapps
Unless the right hon. Gentleman is accusing local authorities of being misleading in the paperwork they return, the new homes bonus must surely be, through the council tax base form, the single most accurate way of knowing how many new dwellings there are in this country. I know that he insists that it is something to do with D to H band homes being deregistered and then reregistered as smaller homes, so I have checked the figures and can tell him that they have been falling; the number of deregistrations has gone from 19,000 to 16,000 to 15,000-plus in each of the past three years, categorically disproving his theory once and for all.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Grant Shapps and Nick Raynsford(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Grant Shapps
I entirely agree. In the last year 85 homes in Hastings have been brought back into use, which is indeed welcome. It is essential for us to reverse the catastrophic policies that, under the last Government, led to the lowest level of house building since the 1920s.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
May I draw the House’s attention to my interests contained in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?
According to the Minister’s answer to a written question that I submitted on this subject recently, more than 70% of all homes qualifying for the new homes bonus in Kensington—one of the richest and most expensive parts of the country—are in council tax band A, which means that in 1991 their rateable value was less than £40,000. No developer or housing association director to whom I have spoken believes that it is possible to build a one-bedroom flat with that value, and some do not think that it is possible even to build a broom cupboard with that value. Is the Minister’s much-vaunted new homes bonus scheme delivering what it is supposed to deliver, or is it simply encouraging the reclassification of existing multi-occupied houses?
Grant Shapps
I know that the architect of the previous system does not like the new homes bonus, but I have to say that he is very mistaken about its impact. Nearly 160,000 new homes have been built—[Interruption.] Twenty-two thousand were brought back into use in the past year. I also know that the right hon. Gentleman is convinced that the new homes bonus does not benefit the right kind of homes, but I can tell him that two thirds of all new homes have been between bands A and C, which is exactly in line with the normal averages. The new homes bonus is rewarding homes throughout the country, and he should welcome the increase in house building.
Housing Reform
Debate between Grant Shapps and Nick Raynsford
Grant Shapps
This is a large document and the receipts will come in many forms. The money that we are announcing for things such as the get Britain building fund will be recycled into building more homes, as will the money from the right-to-buy sales. I will write to my right hon. Friend with a more detailed note on precisely what we expect the receipts to be.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
May I draw attention to my interest as declared in the register? The Minister claimed that housing starts are up by a quarter under this Government. The opposite is true. In the past 12 months, the number of new homes started in England is below 100,000 and is 7% lower than the level over the previous 12 months. As the Minister has such a tenuous grip on what is actually happening in the market, why should we believe a word that he has said today?
Grant Shapps
I am sorry to have to challenge the right hon. Gentleman on this issue, but housing starts are up by 24% under the coalition compared with the comparative period under Labour. I have the figures here for each quarter. I will not stretch your patience, Mr Speaker, but I will happily drop the right hon. Gentleman a note on those figures. If one compares the period that we have been in office—roughly 18 months—with the same period before, housing starts are up by 24%.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Grant Shapps and Nick Raynsford
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
May I draw attention to my interests in the register?
Is the Secretary of State aware that Notting Hill Housing Trust, a housing association, is reported to be marketing overseas some of the homes that it is currently building? Although it may be understandable for private builders facing the very serious crisis in selling properties to do this, is it not totally unacceptable, at a time of chronic need for housing for British people here in this country, for a housing association to be selling homes overseas? What is the Minister going to do about it?
Grant Shapps
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has a long history in housing, and I will certainly undertake to look into the subject that he has raised. Let me mention something else that has come to my attention. A lot of people who are in council houses have second homes, and they rent out their main home or the council home. That is another scandal that I am sure he will appreciate our bringing to an end.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Grant Shapps and Nick Raynsford(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
16. How many new homes received planning consent in the second quarter of 2011 in England.
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)
The latest planning statistics show that in the year to March 2011, local planning authorities granted 37,500 residential planning permissions; that is up 8% on 2009-10.
Mr Raynsford
May I draw the House’s attention to my interests?
Will the Minister admit that the figures for the second quarter—the latest available—show that the number of planning consents for residential development were down 23% on last year? That is the second lowest level ever recorded, and less than half the level necessary to provide for housing needs. Will he also now admit that the Government’s maladroit tampering with the planning system has created the near impossible—namely, achieving the lowest level of housing planning permissions at the same time as infuriating the National Trust and other countryside groups by the prospect of indiscriminate growth?
Grant Shapps
The right hon. Gentleman was the architect of many of the policies that led to the lowest level of house building since the 1920s. When we rip up the regional spatial strategies, cancel his top-down targets and put local people in charge, we can see the results, not measured over one little quarter that he plucks out of the air but over the entire first year of this new Government. Those results show that there were just 88,500 house building starts in the last year of his Government, and that the number had risen to 103,500 in the first year of this Government. That is a rise of 17%.
Social Housing (England)
Debate between Grant Shapps and Nick RaynsfordWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady is absolutely right on that point. I became increasingly convinced of that in my three years shadowing this post. At one stage I went to see Owen Buckwell, an officer looking after housing in Portsmouth. I discovered that he had been doing precisely what the hon. Lady describes, which was to look properly through the list and try to manage it better, to understand who was on the list and for what purpose, and whether they had any likelihood of achieving a social house, or would be better looking elsewhere. The problem is that the current legislation—I think a 2002 Act—makes that nigh on illegal to do. He had to skate quite close to the limits of the legislation to manage that list properly. Bearing in mind the hon. Lady’s comments, I hope she will support—if not the entire Localism Bill—at least the aspects of waiting list reform which I believe will do what she has called on us to achieve.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford talked about flexible tenures and stable communities. That is at the heart of so much of the current housing debate, for reasons I have already mentioned to do with changing the automatic presumption or insistence on a lifetime tenure. He is right that I believe in stable communities: I want them to exist and flourish. The intention of the legislation is not in any way to undermine the ability for that to happen.
Much has been made of two-year tenancies, referred to by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View. I am being clear, in all our language and in the tenancy standards that we will put in place, that two years is to be considered as an exceptional circumstance, and that at least five years would be the norm. I am sure many areas will want to provide tenancies of five, 10, 15, 20 years, perhaps even lifetime tenures still. However, the provision at a local level to provide for a short tenancy to account for exceptional circumstances could be very useful and welcome.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
If the Minister believes that the two-year tenancy should be the exception, why did his party not accept amendments to that effect when the Localism Bill was debated in Committee?
Grant Shapps
Quite simply because we have said we will include it in the tenancy regulations. It is a question of where it is mentioned. The fact is that there are some good and striking reasons why a short tenancy might be useful. I have used the following example in the House before and will use it again, as the family have been in touch this weekend. My constituent, Matthew Hignett, fell off his motorbike on his way to work and is now paralysed from the neck down and will be for life. He told me that he needed some support for just a very short period of time to get himself together and back into work, which, remarkably, he has now done.
When I approached our local authority—otherwise an excellent housing authority—it said it was sorry but that it had no option to help that constituent. He did not qualify for social housing because he previously had his own home, though mortgaged. If it were to give him a home, its only option would be to give it to him for life. That creates problems on both sides. He needed some help for a limited period of time. I want to make that available, and maximum flexibility will do precisely that for people who are sometimes in unusual circumstances, which are difficult to predict. There is no argument against flexibility.
To believe that people are going to be thrown out of their homes after two years is fundamentally to misunderstand the role of social landlords in this country. Social landlords, councils, housing associations, do not spend their time plotting how to kick people out of their homes. They are there to house people: that is their core activity, that is what they do. There is every reason to believe that they would want to keep people in those homes for as long as possible, and not to throw them out. Flexibility is the key; using the housing that we have to best advantage is essential. That is what the flexible tenure will provide within the circumstances of stable and secure communities. People’s expectations will be established, so that they know that they can live in their home for the next 20 years and bring up their family, but that when their family move away, they will probably downsize, as often happens in the private sector.
There has been a lot of discussion about the cost of housing benefit and the affordable rent scheme, and some interesting figures have been thrown about. I would like to cover that issue in a little more detail and note that the impact assessment that was published showed that the scheme would cost in the region of £25 million to £50 million. We do not recognise the figures running into billions of pounds that have been thrown around, for the simple reason that when somebody moves into affordable rented accommodation, they often come from the private rented sector where 100% of their rent is paid for and supported by housing benefit. They might then move into a property where the average rent is 67% of the market rent—that was the figure mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford—and in such cases, the cost of housing benefit would not rise but fall. Such a move will have been supported by capital to build the house through the affordable rent programme.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the affordable rent programme that I hear mentioned time and again. In fact, the programme will assist with the housing benefit bill. That does not mean that there will be no pressures on the housing benefit bill; those pressure have been acknowledged, but they will cost tens of millions of pounds, not thousands of millions.
Grant Shapps
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am very keen on shared-equity schemes and like to do all that I can to assist with them. I agree with his comments about that issue and will be happy to take a further look at it. I ask him to provide me with more details of his very interesting local bonds discussion, which is certainly worthy of further consideration. In terms of the housing revenue account reforms, local authorities can borrow the money elsewhere, particularly when the debt is large. That may apply only to those with the larger debts because it is difficult to beat the public works loan body percentage, which is still very good. Again, I would be interested to hear more about my hon. Friend’s ideas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford touched on tenancy abuse and whether people whose earnings are in six figures should continue to live in the same home. Again, that is not a huge issue because it does not involve very many people, but there is a basic principle that social housing is built for a reason. It is there to help people who would not otherwise be able to afford to get a roof over their head, and it is important that the homes are used for the purpose for which they were meant. I think that if people are staying in council homes, perhaps in London, with a £900-a-week subsidy—a subsidy that is paid for by taxpayers and to which some of the poorest people in society are contributing—long after their need has clearly gone, that is wrong. I agree with the comments that have been made on that.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) should know that it is our policy that if people want to stay, they simply have to pay. That is a very simple principle, which means that a community is not broken up but that if someone’s salary reaches six figures, which possibly places them among the top 1% of earners in the country—it has to be at a very high level to deal with the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View and to ensure that the provision is in no sense against aspiration or preventing people from bettering themselves—it is not unreasonable to ask them to pay if they want to stay in their social house, rather than having it paid for by everyone else.
The issue of under-occupancy and empty homes was raised. I passionately believe in trying to solve the equation of 430,000 people under-occupying while nearly 250,000 are overcrowded. I have provided some money, time and resources in order for the Chartered Institute of Housing to assist with that issue. Some of the reforms of housing benefit, which I know are controversial but which our colleagues in the DWP are pushing through, are designed to help to deal with some of the issues of under-occupancy by simply saying that it cannot be right for the taxpayer more widely to be paying for empty rooms. That does not make sense. We need to pay for people to live in homes, not to live with too much empty space.[Official Report, 13 July 2011, Vol. 531, c. 4MC.]
Mr Raynsford
The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) gave an illustration of the possible adverse consequences of the higher non-dependant deductions leading families to pressurise family members to leave their home because the amount of benefit would be reduced as a result of that increased deduction—this is very complicated. The Minister will recognise that that is clearly a perverse incentive to under-occupation. Will he deal with that concern, as highlighted by his hon. Friend?
Grant Shapps
It is an interesting point, because others would say that the change may well be an encouragement to people to work and help to pay the rent and stay living in the home. If they are of working age, they can of course work, contribute towards the rent and stay living in the home. There is obviously a balance involved. Tempting as it is, I do not want to be drawn into a detailed debate on that. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is a complex area, and many other points were raised in the debate that I want to cover.
There was discussion of the ombudsman, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford suggested that there needed to be something in-between to try to tackle problems. I agree: it is essential that the problems are dealt with at local level with real teeth. There has been some confusion in debate in the House about what has been described, in a rather ugly way, as the democratic filter, but the idea is, under the Localism Bill, that before people go to the ombudsman or to the Tenant Services Authority, as it used to be, they should first try to have the matters resolved locally. The reason why I am so keen for that to be channelled through local MPs, local councillors and tenants panels is that the tenants will be empowered to resolve problems, with the implicit threat that if the problem is not resolved through work with tenants and their representatives, a referral can be made to the ombudsman.
I believe that if that happens, far more cases will be resolved at local level and it will have the added benefit of drawing in councillors, who in many cases have become distant and disconnected from local housing problems, particularly where stocks have been transferred. It will draw them back into the discussion and an understanding of what is happening with the stock. It is very much about resolution.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Grant Shapps and Nick Raynsford
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about right-to-buy, which helped millions of people achieve the aspiration of owning their own homes. This Government fully support that objective. I think it is right, however, to recycle that money into building more homes. Under the affordable rent scheme that I have recently introduced, that is precisely what will happen: if people end up buying their home, more homes will be built, which will help to lessen that record social housing waiting list that we were disgracefully left with after 13 years of Labour Government.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Does not the Minister recognise that, far from promoting home ownership, his Government’s policies have led to a stagnant market in which housing starts are collapsing and public confidence has been shattered by a combination of the Minister’s incompetence and the Government’s economic management. Does he not recognise that the latest figures from the National House-Building Council—the most authoritative source—show that housing starts in April 2011, the latest for which figures are available, are 18% down on last year?
Grant Shapps
I am deeply shocked that the right hon. Gentleman, who is an acknowledged expert on housing, has chosen to judge what is going on in the housing market on the basis of a single month’s figure, rather than an entire year’s worth of data which shows a 22% increase in housing starts. Housing starts mean that homes get built, which is turn means that we are on the road to recovery in terms of starts and builds.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Grant Shapps and Nick Raynsford
Grant Shapps
Let us be clear that the existing social housing programme continues—£2.2 billion goes into that. An additional amount will go into affordable rent. Affordable rent does not mean 80% of market rent. The key words are “up to” 80% of the local market rent, meaning that in some areas, the figures will be somewhere in between social rent and the market rent, but not necessarily 80%.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
May I draw attention to my entry in the register?
Will the Minister admit that he will not build any social rented homes at all, and that the ones that will be built are all inherited from the previous Government? His policy of so-called affordable rented homes—at 80% of market rents—will not produce any social rent properties, and even worse, it will require the conversion of former social rent properties to so-called affordable rent properties when they become available for re-let. That means no new affordable social rented homes, and more people waiting for a home that they can afford.
Grant Shapps
It seems obvious to me that if homes are not built today or at least at the time of the election, and we subsequently build them, they will be counted in the homes that we build. The fact that we have decided to continue to put £2.2 billion into the build programme in addition to the affordable rent programme means that we will out-build the previous Labour Government not just over four years, but in comparison to their 13 years, in every single year.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Grant Shapps and Nick Raynsford(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Let me first draw attention to my interests, as declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It is quite right for the Government—and all of us—to take action to protect tenants against antisocial behaviour on the part of those who make their lives a misery, but do the Government not recognise that their imposition of harsh housing benefit cuts and steep increases in rents for social housing, and their termination of security of tenure for new social lettings, will inflict misery and insecurity on many more tenants in the future?
Grant Shapps
That is an entirely inaccurate portrayal of what is happening. For one thing, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, the rent policy was set by the last Government in a deliberate attempt to merge housing association and council rents. Ministers in past Governments, including some in the last Government, recognised that the lazy consensus that houses should be given to people for ever, even if their circumstances changed, was long past its sell-by date. It is ironic that so many Opposition Members are prepared to fight and die in a ditch for a policy of lifetime tenures that was introduced by Margaret Thatcher.
Localism Bill
Debate between Grant Shapps and Nick Raynsford(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Raynsford
As the hon. Gentleman will realise if he reflects on this, there is a continuum that makes it difficult to identify where one stops expressing an opinion and where one tries to produce the outcome that one is advocating. Front Benchers should remember that they have responsibilities and that their comments are often interpreted as a wish to see an outcome.
The drafting of the Bill is very unhelpful to the Ministers’ cause of trying to win support for it. I challenge anyone, even the most experienced parliamentarian, to have an easy evening’s read if they try to wade through its countless clauses and schedules. Its drafting—overwhelmingly by way of amendment to other legislation, and with the absence of detailed provision in many of its clauses, which, we are told, will be supplemented by regulations—makes it difficult to have a full feel for what exactly the Government intend. We understand their aspiration, but what will be the detailed implications? That is far from clear, and inevitably lots of suspicions abound that while their intentions may be good the outcomes will not be.
Whether we are talking about how neighbourhood plans will be shaped or how the new insecure tenancies that the Government are imposing on social housing will operate, we do not know the full implications because no provisions have been published or, in the latter case, because the consultation concluded only today, so of course we do not know what the details will be. That suggests a Bill put together in a hurry, without adequate consultation or proper consideration of some of its provisions. If ever a measure cried out for pre-legislative scrutiny, this is it. It is a tragedy that it is being rushed through without proper consideration of its detailed implications and of how the Government’s good localist intentions—I give them that—will work in practice.
The lack of certainty over the Government’s plans and over the effect of the Bill is obvious throughout. On the theme of localism itself, the Government have put an emphasis on neighbourhoods. That might imply a commitment to neighbourhood decision making, or to devolution to a local authority or, in London, to the Mayor, but what happens if those bodies come into conflict? What happens if the Mayor pursues an objective with which the borough council or the local neighbourhood does not agree? There is the added problem that in areas without parish councils the neighbourhood forum that may come into existence under the Bill will not have a recognised form of democratic accountability. Who will prevail when there is a conflict between the various bodies?
Clauses 168 and 169 will allow the Mayor of London to designate any area in London as a mayoral development corporation, which will take over the local authority’s planning powers. Let us imagine that the Mayor of London changes—an election will be held next year. What if the new Mayor is not from the party of the Government? He might look at house building performance in Bromley, for example, and decide that not enough homes are being built there. He might say, “I see some interesting powers in the legislation and I propose to set up a mayoral development corporation in Bromley to get more homes built there.” Under the provisions of the Bill, with which Ministers will be familiar, the Mayor has to consult on his proposals, but he does not have to act on the views of the consultees if he does not agree with them. In the consultation, he would no doubt hear screams of protest from Bromley council and the residents, but he would also hear many people in London saying that they want more homes and that he should do his utmost to build them. What would happen if the Mayor presented a request to the Government to bring in an order to give effect to a mayoral development corporation in Bromley? As I read the Bill—I challenge Ministers to tell me if I am wrong—the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), would face the delightful proposition of enacting the order, because the Bill says that the Secretary of State must act on any such request from the Mayor, even if the local council and the local neighbourhood do not like it.
That brings us back to the tension between competing views of localism, on which, I am afraid, the Bill is entirely silent. If I were a Minister, I would not want to be tied to introducing something on the say so of a mayor who might have very different objectives from those of the Government.
Some provisions in the Bill, such as that one, are slightly bonkers, but others are seriously damaging. The housing and planning provisions will destabilise the planning and housing process at a time when, above all, we need confidence and certainty to get the new homes that we need. The housing market was badly hit by the recession and recovered strongly in early 2010, but the Government’s maladroit and unlawful interference in the planning system has undermined that confidence. The market is now tottering along on the bottom, there is no confidence, and millions of people know that the prospects of getting a decent home at a price within their means are terribly short. The Bill’s ill-considered and untested changes to the planning regime will make an already bad situation worse.
The unwanted changes to social tenancies and the weakening of protection for homeless people are misconceived and should be opposed. Before the election, the Conservative party pretended that it had no plan to introduce those measures, and the Liberal Democrats would have denounced the idea of introducing them as part of a coalition.
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Raynsford
I have only 10 seconds, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I have time to say only that the Bill is riddled with anomalies. It is a rag-bag of ill-considered—
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Grant Shapps and Nick Raynsford(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he believes that house prices will rise or fall over the next six months? If they fall, would he see that as a good thing or a bad thing?
Grant Shapps
House prices will fluctuate. [Interruption.] It is obvious. We do not want to see house prices doubling in a period of just 10 years as happened under the last Labour Government, locking generations out of being able to get a foot on the housing ladder. This Government want to help people on to the housing ladder, not exclude them.