Social Housing and Regulation Bill [ LORDS ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Helen Hayes and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

I appreciate the Minister’s concern about binding the regulator too rigidly. I push back slightly against the point made by the hon. Member for Erewash: I think it is wrong to say—the experience of recent years shows this—that just because we give a regulator a power, it necessarily uses it, and certainly not in a proactive way. At this stage, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 8, in clause 31, page 29, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 30 and insert—

“(5) Equipment or materials taken onto premises by virtue of subsection (4)(b) may be left in a place on the premises until the emergency remedial action has been taken provided that—

(a) leaving the equipment or the materials in that place does not significantly impair the ability of an occupier to use the premises, or

(b) leaving the equipment or the materials on the premises is necessary for the purposes of taking the emergency remedial action and it is not possible to leave it or them in a place that does not significantly impair the ability of an occupier to use the premises.”

This adjusts the power to leave equipment etc on premises so that it can only be left in a place that significantly impairs the ability of occupiers to use the premises if there is no other place on the premises it can be left which doesn’t impair such use.

Amendment 9, in clause 31, page 30, line 6, at end insert—

“(6) Where the premises include common parts of a building (as defined in section 225C), references in subsection (5) to the ability of an occupier to use the premises include the ability of an occupier of a dwelling that has use of the common parts to use those parts or the dwelling.”

Where emergency remedial action is taken on premises which include common parts of a building this amendment requires the effect on the ability of occupiers to use their dwellings and the common parts to be considered in determining whether equipment or materials can be left on the premises while the work is carried out.

Amendment 10, in clause 31, page 30, leave out lines 29 to 36 and insert—

“(5) Equipment or materials taken onto premises by virtue of subsection (4) may be left in a place on the premises until the emergency remedial action has been taken provided that—

(a) leaving the equipment or the materials in that place does not significantly impair the ability of an occupier to use the premises, or

(b) leaving the equipment or the materials on the premises is necessary for the purposes of taking the emergency remedial action and it is not possible to leave it or them in a place that does not significantly impair the ability of an occupier to use the premises.”

This adjusts the power to leave equipment etc on premises so that it can only be left in a place that significantly impairs the ability of occupiers to use the premises if there is no other place on the premises it can be left which doesn’t impair such use.

Amendment 11, in clause 31, page 30, line 36, at end insert—

“(5A) Where the premises include common parts of a building (as defined in section 225C), references in subsection (5) to the ability of an occupier to use the premises include the ability of an occupier of a dwelling that has use of the common parts to use those parts or the dwelling.”—(Dehenna Davison.)

Where emergency remedial action is taken on premises which include common parts of a building this amendment requires the effect on the ability of occupiers to use their dwellings and the common parts to be considered in determining whether equipment or materials can be left on the premises while the work is carried out.

Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 32 to 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clauses 36 to 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clauses 39 and 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clauses 41 to 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44

Short title

Amendment made: 12, in clause 44, page 37, line 10, leave out subsection (2).—(Dehenna Davison.)

This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.

Clause 44, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Regulator duty to ensure continuity of secure tenancy in cases of threat to safety

“(1) The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 92K insert—

‘92KA Duty to ensure continuity of secure tenancy in cases of threat to safety

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a registered provider of social housing has granted a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England to a person (whether as the sole tenant or a joint tenant), and

(b) the registered provider is satisfied that there is a threat to the personal safety of that person or of a member of that person’s household which means there is a risk to their personal safety unless they move.

(2) When subsection (1) applies, the regulator must ensure that the registered provider grants the tenant a new secure tenancy which is–

(a) on terms at least equivalent to the existing tenancy; and

(b) in a dwelling where the threat to the tenant’s personal safety does not apply.

(3) In this section, a “threat to personal safety” means any threat of violence, including in circumstances of—

(a) domestic abuse where the perpetrator does not live at the same address as the victim;

(b) an escalating neighbour dispute;

(c) a threat of targeted youth or gang violence.

(4) In assessing the threat under subsection (1)(b), the registered provider must act in accordance with any relevant police advice provided to–

(a) the registered provider,

(b) the tenant, or

(c) any member of the tenant’s household.

(5) In the event that a registered provider is unable to ensure the provision of an appropriate new secure tenancy pursuant to subsection (2), the regulator must ensure that the registered provider concerned co-operates with other registered providers to ensure an appropriate new secure tenancy is provided in a timely manner.’”—(Helen Hayes.)

This new clause would require the regulator to ensure that tenants whose safety is threatened are granted alternative accommodation by their housing provider on equivalent terms to their existing tenancy. It also requires the regulator to ensure that a provider which is unable to provide appropriate alternative accommodation co-operates with other providers to do so.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. The new clause proposes a small but significant amendment to housing law to give additional security to social housing tenants who suffer the consequences of a threat of serious violence. The clause arises from my experience of representing my constituent Georgia, an NHS worker whose teenage son was threatened by gang members. Georgia was a housing association tenant who had lived in her home for nine years. She and her children were happy in their home, which she had recently redecorated—then her neighbours told her that one afternoon, while she was at work, they had heard loud banging on her door. Georgia eventually coaxed out of her son the information that he had witnessed something that local gang members had not wanted him to see, and they had come to her home looking for him. Georgia contacted the police, who told her that she had to move immediately for her family’s safety. She got in touch with her housing association, which told her that it was the council’s responsibility to provide emergency housing. The council placed Georgia and her children in temporary accommodation, which was in another borough, of poor quality and expensive. Georgia’s children did not have enough space, the flat was damp and dirty, it was hard for her children to do their homework and Georgia started to suffer from panic attacks that affected her work.

By the time that Georgia’s friend got in touch with me because she was worried about Georgia’s health and the wellbeing of her children, they had been in the temporary accommodation for six months, and her housing association had started the process of ending her tenancy because she was no longer living in her flat. The consequence of this, in the context of the UK’s housing crisis, would have been Georgia and her children being added to the statistics of homeless households, in temporary accommodation—potentially indefinitely—and at the bottom of the housing waiting list. No one should become homeless because their child is threatened.

In one London borough, 47 housing association tenants—at the time that I did this research, earlier this year—have required homelessness assistance from the council as a result of a threat of violence since 2019. Across the country, that means that thousands of families have had to leave their home each year, with their secure tenancies potentially at risk, on top of having to rebuild their lives in a new area. Homelessness is fundamentally destabilising, involving the loss of a sanctuary and a place in one’s community. It is deeply traumatising to have to make an emergency move because of a threat of violence and start again somewhere else. Our housing system should do everything possible to help families in such circumstances to make the transition to a new, permanent home as soon as possible to limit the harm caused by that threat.

I am delighted that the new clause has the support of both Shelter and the National Housing Federation. Shelter has also highlighted the case of Corey Junior Davis, or CJ, whose mum had asked her housing association for an urgent move after her son had been threatened and told her that he feared for his life. CJ’s mum had done everything possible to keep her son safe, including sending him to stay with relatives in a different area, but six months after her initial request, while they were still waiting for a move, CJ was shot and killed. I have also met several constituents who have sent their children away to keep them safe, because they know what the consequences of an emergency move to temporary accommodation would mean and they fear those consequences. That is not a choice that any parent should have to make.

The new clause would have the effect of requiring social landlords to protect the tenancy rights of secure tenants who have had to move due to a threat of serious violence, and would place a duty on social landlords to co-operate in a situation in which the tenant’s current landlord does not hold stock in an area that is considered safe for the tenant to move to. The threshold for these new duties to be triggered is that the police consider an emergency move to be necessary. Georgia was troubled by what had happened to her son, but it had not occurred to her that she would have to move out of the home that she loved until the police said that that was necessary to safeguard her child’s life. The group of people who would be protected by the new clause are not net additional demand on the social housing system; they are already secure social tenants, and the current social home that they are vacating would of course be returned to the landlord to be let to a new tenant.

There are many reasons why people become homeless due to no fault on their part. The clause will not protect all of them, but I am tabling this new clause for two reasons. The first is that the loss of a secure social tenancy, and effectively going to the bottom of an impossibly long housing waiting list, is far too high a price to pay for being the victim of a threat of violence. Georgia and her children suffered a grave detriment, simply because some violent gang members decided to threaten her son. The second is that serious violence is a scourge on the lives of all those that it affects. Far too many young people are living with the deep trauma of things that they have witnessed or friends that they have lost to knife or gun crime. We have a duty to do everything possible to stop the cycle of violence and the trauma that it causes in our communities. Supporting the victims of threats of violence to regain stability and move on with their lives is one way in which we can do that. Plunging victims into the unstable, often appalling, world of temporary accommodation has the opposite effect. We have the opportunity to change that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. The new clause would impose a duty of co-operation on registered social landlords, which is designed to deal exactly with such a circumstance, where accommodation cannot be found that is safe for the tenant within the area in which the current landlord holds property. These are of course very challenging cases. I have certainly come across constituency cases in which the tenant simply cannot bring themselves to move from their home because the consequences are so dire for them, even when an offer has been made in an area that is considered by the police to be safe for them.

The new clause will not resolve every single circumstance, but in Georgia’s case, when I phoned a senior director in her large registered housing provider she was provided with a new tenancy in a safe borough, and signed that tenancy within a week. With greater will on the part of registered providers, and I believe that placing a duty would prompt that greater will, much more can be done to stop the cycle of violence in our communities.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend’s new clause, Georgia’s law. She made an extremely powerful case for it. I believe that it is sensible and proportionate, and will have a significant impact. I am sure that many hon. Members present have dealt with the kind of cases that she outlined—I certainly have. We are talking about a small but significant minority of tenants in England, but they find themselves, as the hon. Member for Harrow East said, in the exceptional circumstances of a police referral. All the new clause asks for is the protection of their tenancy rights, which should not be lost when they are forced to move, and greater co-operation between registered providers.

It is no surprise that the new clause is supported by organisations such as the NHF and Shelter. I think this is a very strong new clause, and I very much hope that the Government are minded to act on this issue, if not today then on Report. It is a crucial provision and will benefit the lives of many of our constituents.

Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [ LORDS ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Helen Hayes and Matthew Pennycook

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

I appreciate the Minister’s concern about binding the regulator too rigidly. I push back slightly against the point made by the hon. Member for Erewash: I think it is wrong to say—the experience of recent years shows this—that just because we give a regulator a power, it necessarily uses it, and certainly not in a proactive way. At this stage, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 8, in clause 31, page 29, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 30 and insert—

“(5) Equipment or materials taken onto premises by virtue of subsection (4)(b) may be left in a place on the premises until the emergency remedial action has been taken provided that—

(a) leaving the equipment or the materials in that place does not significantly impair the ability of an occupier to use the premises, or

(b) leaving the equipment or the materials on the premises is necessary for the purposes of taking the emergency remedial action and it is not possible to leave it or them in a place that does not significantly impair the ability of an occupier to use the premises.”

This adjusts the power to leave equipment etc on premises so that it can only be left in a place that significantly impairs the ability of occupiers to use the premises if there is no other place on the premises it can be left which doesn’t impair such use.

Amendment 9, in clause 31, page 30, line 6, at end insert—

“(6) Where the premises include common parts of a building (as defined in section 225C), references in subsection (5) to the ability of an occupier to use the premises include the ability of an occupier of a dwelling that has use of the common parts to use those parts or the dwelling.”

Where emergency remedial action is taken on premises which include common parts of a building this amendment requires the effect on the ability of occupiers to use their dwellings and the common parts to be considered in determining whether equipment or materials can be left on the premises while the work is carried out.

Amendment 10, in clause 31, page 30, leave out lines 29 to 36 and insert—

“(5) Equipment or materials taken onto premises by virtue of subsection (4) may be left in a place on the premises until the emergency remedial action has been taken provided that—

(a) leaving the equipment or the materials in that place does not significantly impair the ability of an occupier to use the premises, or

(b) leaving the equipment or the materials on the premises is necessary for the purposes of taking the emergency remedial action and it is not possible to leave it or them in a place that does not significantly impair the ability of an occupier to use the premises.”

This adjusts the power to leave equipment etc on premises so that it can only be left in a place that significantly impairs the ability of occupiers to use the premises if there is no other place on the premises it can be left which doesn’t impair such use.

Amendment 11, in clause 31, page 30, line 36, at end insert—

“(5A) Where the premises include common parts of a building (as defined in section 225C), references in subsection (5) to the ability of an occupier to use the premises include the ability of an occupier of a dwelling that has use of the common parts to use those parts or the dwelling.”—(Dehenna Davison.)

Where emergency remedial action is taken on premises which include common parts of a building this amendment requires the effect on the ability of occupiers to use their dwellings and the common parts to be considered in determining whether equipment or materials can be left on the premises while the work is carried out.

Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 32 to 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clauses 36 to 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clauses 39 and 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clauses 41 to 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44

Short title

Amendment made: 12, in clause 44, page 37, line 10, leave out subsection (2).—(Dehenna Davison.)

This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.

Clause 44, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Regulator duty to ensure continuity of secure tenancy in cases of threat to safety

“(1) The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 92K insert—

‘92KA Duty to ensure continuity of secure tenancy in cases of threat to safety

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a registered provider of social housing has granted a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England to a person (whether as the sole tenant or a joint tenant), and

(b) the registered provider is satisfied that there is a threat to the personal safety of that person or of a member of that person’s household which means there is a risk to their personal safety unless they move.

(2) When subsection (1) applies, the regulator must ensure that the registered provider grants the tenant a new secure tenancy which is–

(a) on terms at least equivalent to the existing tenancy; and

(b) in a dwelling where the threat to the tenant’s personal safety does not apply.

(3) In this section, a “threat to personal safety” means any threat of violence, including in circumstances of—

(a) domestic abuse where the perpetrator does not live at the same address as the victim;

(b) an escalating neighbour dispute;

(c) a threat of targeted youth or gang violence.

(4) In assessing the threat under subsection (1)(b), the registered provider must act in accordance with any relevant police advice provided to–

(a) the registered provider,

(b) the tenant, or

(c) any member of the tenant’s household.

(5) In the event that a registered provider is unable to ensure the provision of an appropriate new secure tenancy pursuant to subsection (2), the regulator must ensure that the registered provider concerned co-operates with other registered providers to ensure an appropriate new secure tenancy is provided in a timely manner.’”—(Helen Hayes.)

This new clause would require the regulator to ensure that tenants whose safety is threatened are granted alternative accommodation by their housing provider on equivalent terms to their existing tenancy. It also requires the regulator to ensure that a provider which is unable to provide appropriate alternative accommodation co-operates with other providers to do so.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. The new clause proposes a small but significant amendment to housing law to give additional security to social housing tenants who suffer the consequences of a threat of serious violence. The clause arises from my experience of representing my constituent Georgia, an NHS worker whose teenage son was threatened by gang members. Georgia was a housing association tenant who had lived in her home for nine years. She and her children were happy in their home, which she had recently redecorated—then her neighbours told her that one afternoon, while she was at work, they had heard loud banging on her door. Georgia eventually coaxed out of her son the information that he had witnessed something that local gang members had not wanted him to see, and they had come to her home looking for him. Georgia contacted the police, who told her that she had to move immediately for her family’s safety. She got in touch with her housing association, which told her that it was the council’s responsibility to provide emergency housing. The council placed Georgia and her children in temporary accommodation, which was in another borough, of poor quality and expensive. Georgia’s children did not have enough space, the flat was damp and dirty, it was hard for her children to do their homework and Georgia started to suffer from panic attacks that affected her work.

By the time that Georgia’s friend got in touch with me because she was worried about Georgia’s health and the wellbeing of her children, they had been in the temporary accommodation for six months, and her housing association had started the process of ending her tenancy because she was no longer living in her flat. The consequence of this, in the context of the UK’s housing crisis, would have been Georgia and her children being added to the statistics of homeless households, in temporary accommodation—potentially indefinitely—and at the bottom of the housing waiting list. No one should become homeless because their child is threatened.

In one London borough, 47 housing association tenants—at the time that I did this research, earlier this year—have required homelessness assistance from the council as a result of a threat of violence since 2019. Across the country, that means that thousands of families have had to leave their home each year, with their secure tenancies potentially at risk, on top of having to rebuild their lives in a new area. Homelessness is fundamentally destabilising, involving the loss of a sanctuary and a place in one’s community. It is deeply traumatising to have to make an emergency move because of a threat of violence and start again somewhere else. Our housing system should do everything possible to help families in such circumstances to make the transition to a new, permanent home as soon as possible to limit the harm caused by that threat.

I am delighted that the new clause has the support of both Shelter and the National Housing Federation. Shelter has also highlighted the case of Corey Junior Davis, or CJ, whose mum had asked her housing association for an urgent move after her son had been threatened and told her that he feared for his life. CJ’s mum had done everything possible to keep her son safe, including sending him to stay with relatives in a different area, but six months after her initial request, while they were still waiting for a move, CJ was shot and killed. I have also met several constituents who have sent their children away to keep them safe, because they know what the consequences of an emergency move to temporary accommodation would mean and they fear those consequences. That is not a choice that any parent should have to make.

The new clause would have the effect of requiring social landlords to protect the tenancy rights of secure tenants who have had to move due to a threat of serious violence, and would place a duty on social landlords to co-operate in a situation in which the tenant’s current landlord does not hold stock in an area that is considered safe for the tenant to move to. The threshold for these new duties to be triggered is that the police consider an emergency move to be necessary. Georgia was troubled by what had happened to her son, but it had not occurred to her that she would have to move out of the home that she loved until the police said that that was necessary to safeguard her child’s life. The group of people who would be protected by the new clause are not net additional demand on the social housing system; they are already secure social tenants, and the current social home that they are vacating would of course be returned to the landlord to be let to a new tenant.

There are many reasons why people become homeless due to no fault on their part. The clause will not protect all of them, but I am tabling this new clause for two reasons. The first is that the loss of a secure social tenancy, and effectively going to the bottom of an impossibly long housing waiting list, is far too high a price to pay for being the victim of a threat of violence. Georgia and her children suffered a grave detriment, simply because some violent gang members decided to threaten her son. The second is that serious violence is a scourge on the lives of all those that it affects. Far too many young people are living with the deep trauma of things that they have witnessed or friends that they have lost to knife or gun crime. We have a duty to do everything possible to stop the cycle of violence and the trauma that it causes in our communities. Supporting the victims of threats of violence to regain stability and move on with their lives is one way in which we can do that. Plunging victims into the unstable, often appalling, world of temporary accommodation has the opposite effect. We have the opportunity to change that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. The new clause would impose a duty of co-operation on registered social landlords, which is designed to deal exactly with such a circumstance, where accommodation cannot be found that is safe for the tenant within the area in which the current landlord holds property. These are of course very challenging cases. I have certainly come across constituency cases in which the tenant simply cannot bring themselves to move from their home because the consequences are so dire for them, even when an offer has been made in an area that is considered by the police to be safe for them.

The new clause will not resolve every single circumstance, but in Georgia’s case, when I phoned a senior director in her large registered housing provider she was provided with a new tenancy in a safe borough, and signed that tenancy within a week. With greater will on the part of registered providers, and I believe that placing a duty would prompt that greater will, much more can be done to stop the cycle of violence in our communities.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend’s new clause, Georgia’s law. She made an extremely powerful case for it. I believe that it is sensible and proportionate, and will have a significant impact. I am sure that many hon. Members present have dealt with the kind of cases that she outlined—I certainly have. We are talking about a small but significant minority of tenants in England, but they find themselves, as the hon. Member for Harrow East said, in the exceptional circumstances of a police referral. All the new clause asks for is the protection of their tenancy rights, which should not be lost when they are forced to move, and greater co-operation between registered providers.

It is no surprise that the new clause is supported by organisations such as the NHF and Shelter. I think this is a very strong new clause, and I very much hope that the Government are minded to act on this issue, if not today then on Report. It is a crucial provision and will benefit the lives of many of our constituents.

Housing and Planning Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Debate between Helen Hayes and Matthew Pennycook

Thursday 10th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

It is absolutely shameful that the Government have tabled this new clause so late in the Committee’s deliberations, without time for tenants to be consulted, without time for the Committee to take evidence orally or in writing from tenants and from those who represent tenants, and without the opportunity to hear the views of the social housing sector and of councils. The proposal is yet another radical reform and a forceful attack on social housing as we know it.

Southwark Council, one of the councils that I represent, consulted during the previous Parliament on the Government’s proposed flexibility to change the form of council tenancies. It consulted extensively with its tenants and in the end it decided to take advantage of the proposal to introduce introductory tenancies, but not to remove lifetime tenancies. That was because of the views that residents expressed during the consultation.

I recall a conversation with a woman who lives on one of my council estates. She was an original right-to-buy tenant. She bought her flat and brought up her family there. She has lived on the estate for more than 40 years and has been the life and soul of the community; she has been chair and vice-chair of her tenants and residents association. She said to me, “If you as the council introduce this proposal, we are finished as a community, because you will be undermining the stability of our community. You will be destabilising. We will have a much more rapid turnover. Our ability to be a cohesive, strong, stable and long-term community on this estate will be gone.” That is the significance of this proposed reform of social housing. It denies stability and security to households on low and moderate incomes, who cannot afford to buy.

I do not understand why the Government are so set on making a distinction between the aspirations of people who can afford to buy and those of everybody else. I do not understand why the Government are bent on denying people on lower incomes the stability of knowing that they can live in their community for the long term; that they can send their children to the local school for as long as they need to be there; that they can invest in that community and play an active role in supporting their neighbours and in giving back. I do not understand why the Government are making that distinction on income grounds alone.

I am concerned that a consequence of the proposal will be to force tenants, for whom home ownership is not sustainable in the long term, to consider the right to buy. In my nearly six years as a councillor, many residents have come to me in deep distress because of the cost of major works bills and the cost of service charges, which they did not necessarily anticipate were coming and which they had not set aside the money for. They had 95% mortgages and they did not have the equity in their home to be able to borrow to cover those costs. Their home is threatened as a consequence of the financial strain. I am concerned that if people think they have only two, three or five years to live in their social home, and that the way to achieve longevity is to buy their home, they will be forced to take up the right-to-buy option when it is not in their long-term financial interests to do so.

It is worth rehearsing exactly how many and varied the ways are in which the Government seem bent on an attack on social tenants. We have the high income tenant provision for tenants who are not actually recognised as high earners by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs under the pay to stay clauses. We are still living with the pernicious bedroom tax. We have absolutely no funding line at all in the comprehensive spending review to deliver a Government subsidy for new social housing, the delivery of which—not the punishment of existing tenants—is the key to solving the social housing crisis. The forced sale of council homes will reduce the number of those homes available to meet the need that is there. This is a race to the bottom on housing for those on low to moderate incomes. It seems to me that the poor standards and insecurity of tenure of the private rented sector are the standards the Government are aiming for, rather than an aspiration to raise standards and security of tenure, and the availability of secure tenure, for those on low to moderate incomes.

New clause 32 is a further pernicious measure that simply punishes those who, through no fault of their own, are on low to moderate incomes. It shows absolute contempt for social tenants that the new clause has been introduced with no opportunity for tenants or their representatives to be consulted and make their views known, and with no opportunity for the Government to hear from them at first hand. Many times during Committee I have referred to my constituents—the people who, every week, come to my surgeries and write to me. Week in, week out, many people raise issues relating to security of tenure. They worry and are caused great anxiety—in fact, it affects their mental health to know that they might have to take their children out of school to move to a more affordable area. Insecurity of tenure undermines people’s ability to save for the future, the strength of community connections, and the ability of people to support each other in a mixed, balanced and diverse community. These things matter to all residents, not only those who can afford to buy their own home.

I would like the Committee and the Government to hear at first hand from tenants and leaseholders—those who live alongside tenants on our mixed and diverse estates—about the effect the new clause will have on them. I hope that the Government will withdraw the new clause so that tenants’ views on it can be heard and can inform the debate.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Gray.

I rise to oppose the new clauses and new schedules. In doing so, I will try to be as measured as my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham and for Dulwich and West Norwood, but I too am angry. Let us be clear: this is not just one group of a bunch of new provisions that have been tabled; taken together, the new clauses and new schedules represent a significant reform of housing law—probably, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said, the most important since local authority tenants were given security of tenure by the Thatcher Government in the Housing Act 1980. We can have a robust debate about the rationale for the Government’s policy, but whatever the views of individual Members on the Government and Opposition Benches, there is absolutely no justification for the shabby way that these provisions have been brought before the Committee. There has been no consultation or impact assessment. The Minister says we will get one sometime before the Bill goes to the House of Lords, but that will not give the Committee an opportunity to scrutinise this important legislation properly.

Housing and Planning Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Debate between Helen Hayes and Matthew Pennycook

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

I support the amendment. We all welcome development and new homes, but I strongly agree that garden cities and corporations, when they are bringing development forward, need to put sustainability and place making at the heart of their plans. That has a particular resonance with something that I am very passionate about, which is climate change and energy efficiency.

New subsection (2B)(e) would ensure that, in building new homes, UDCs would have to ensure that those homes and that development

“contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008”.

We know that homes are central to the UK meeting its climate change targets and that meeting our EU obligations of 15% renewables by 2020 looks ever more precarious; a leaked letter from the Secretary of State only a few weeks back showed that. Homes have a crucial role to play.

The context at the moment for delivering sustainable homes is not great. The Government have scrapped the zero-carbon homes policy that was starting to bear fruit in many areas. The London Mayor has taken a different view and sought to put some of the provisions of that policy back in place through the London plan, and I welcome that. The context for bringing forward environmentally sustainable, high-quality homes has become more precarious and the amendment would go some way, in relation to UDCs, to making sure that sustainable homes are at the heart of what is built. That is important.

It goes back to the debate we had earlier. The hon. Members for Peterborough and for South Norfolk, and others, bemoaned the socialist architecture of the 1950s—I would call it brutalist, though they may not draw such a distinction—when homes and places for people to live were built that have not fared well over the decades. We have an obligation because the cost of retrofitting homes that fall below environmentally sustainable standards far outweighs that of the measures we need to put in place. We want to build homes that last for generations and are fit for people to live in. For that reason I support the amendment.

[Helen Hayes]

I, too, want to speak briefly in support of the amendment. However the planning system is defined, it embodies a set of values and prioritises a series of outcomes. Garden cities of the past were so successful as communities, function so well and are such popular places to live in precisely because of the high aspirations and strong values on which they were founded and the extensive efforts to secure high-quality design and the long-term sustainability of the resourcing of those communities, in all sorts of different ways. That happened because their founders were thinking about long-term success and the values of the communities that they were developing and because they were established on strong principles.

In contrast, some of the early urban development corporations did not embody those same aspirations. The development that took place was, in many cases, far less attractive as a consequence and far less well served with open spaces and amenities. It was often unsustainable or lacking in things such as local school places and good public transport connections. Some of those lessons from the early urban development corporations have informed the way in which development has taken place in the last 10 years or so. We have seen an emphasis on bringing forward community infrastructure early in the development process, so that communities are not left stranded and ill-provided for.

So far, I have seen nothing in the Bill that will ensure that new development under the Bill will be built to a high quality or high standard of sustainability. That is of significant concern. That is what the amendment is seeking to ensure both for urban development corporations and garden cities, which can and should play a significant role in building the homes we need. We must ensure that those homes are built to the highest standards for the long term, that they become part of the heritage of this country and of communities we can be proud of for the long term. We will do that only if we get right the values and the aspirations on which they are founded. That is why I am pleased to support the amendment.

Housing and Planning Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Helen Hayes and Matthew Pennycook

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is not a public subsidy and the hon. Gentleman misunderstands my point. HRAs are self-financing. We are not talking about the two thirds of tenants in council housing who claim housing benefit, but there are problems in that regard. That is an economic subsidy from Government.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I want to make a similar point. The procurement of affordable housing through the planning system is not public subsidy, but the use of the democratic planning system to ensure that development provides what local communities need.

Housing and Planning Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Helen Hayes and Matthew Pennycook

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Helen Hayes]

Q 6 Finally, are you concerned that starter home development will be free from the community infrastructure levy and section 106 contributions?

Richard Blakeway: As we understand it, so-called exemption sites are free from the community infrastructure levy. Our expectation, however—our strategic land assessment has done a tremendous amount of work to identify brownfield opportunities—is that there are probably not many exemption sites in London where that would apply. Where it applies otherwise—clearly, starter homes should apply to all significant sites—affordable housing is already exempt from CIL, and it is just another affordable housing product.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Q 7 May I press you on the impact of the starter homes clauses on more innovative models of affordable and intermediate housing? I am thinking, for example, of Pocket housing, which the Mayor has been very supportive of, and where eligibility is secured in perpetuity through a section 106 agreement. Do you think those clauses will have an impact on those types of models and their ability to expand across the capital?

Richard Blakeway: I emphasise the point again that starter homes are not a substitute for affordable housing and are not intended to be a substitute for all intermediate products. We would like to see both working alongside each other, and we would like to see products such as Pocket. The GLA is delivering a long-term investment partnership. I am sure Pocket would say that many of the people it helps to house are within the general expectation for starter homes—they are below the age of 40, for example, and within the price bracket to which the house-price cap applies. It is very important that starter homes work in London. They are a really important addition to help people achieve their aspiration to own a home, but they have to work alongside other intermediate products.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q 63 Following on from that, there are lots of areas of the Bill where we await further regulations and statutory instruments. What would be the sector’s reaction if the Government did not deliver on commitments given under that voluntary deal?

David Orr: I have been asked this question on a number of occasions and my answer is always the same: this is a voluntary deal. If the Government, for whatever reason, fail to meet the commitments that they have agreed to under the deal, the deal falls. If we fail to meet the commitments that we have agreed to under the voluntary deal, the deal falls. I have no expectation that that is going to happen—I think that the core principles that we wrote into the deal will be the basis on which it operates, but if not the deal will fall.

[Helen Hayes]

Q 64 Some of the housing associations that recently appeared before the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government indicated that they thought the likely impact of this Bill would be fewer homes delivered by housing associations for social and other forms of affordable rent. I wanted to ask both of you, first, what you think the net impact of the Bill will be on housing associations’ delivery of social and other affordable forms of homes for rent and, secondly, whether you fear developers deserting housing associations in favour of delivering starter homes themselves?

Sinéad Butters: Our members have raised significant concerns about the potential erosion of social rented housing as a result of a combination of impacts. That combination includes the pay-to-stay option, the starter homes initiative and, depending on what is replaced under right to buy, the erosion of social housing under right to buy. What I would like to make absolutely clear is that our members collaborated with the Government on the home ownership options and see home ownership as one part of something—it is not “either/or”, it is an “and” for our members.

The impact on the future for social rented housing prompts the question, where will the poorest live? If there is nowhere for poor people to live in future, one might imagine that poverty is decreasing, yet I do not see that. It is a very real question. We would ask for the flexibility to have local solutions in the areas where we work closely with local authorities to determine what is needed in that area, including a range of social rented housing, home ownership options, market rent and sale. Our members would embrace the opportunity to work locally to make sure that what the community needs is what the community gets.

David Orr: The Bill itself is a relatively small part of a combined package. If we are going to build a whole lot of new homes we need land first and foremost. Anything that this Bill can do to help to release land for new home building would be helpful. Like Sinéad, I have anxieties about the competing priorities in the space where section 106 presently operates. It has been a useful mechanism for delivering affordable homes for rent and for shared ownership, and a useful mechanism for volume developers to front-end the cash for their developments. If all these things are squeezed out by starter homes, the impact is likely to be a reduction in the overall supply. If we are able, as Sinéad has said, to have an environment where we see significant growth in new home building across all tenures—some for market sale, market rent, social rent, shared ownership, starter homes—that is where we need to be. We need to have this mixed-tenure package. The new homes that we build need to be across all tenures.

With regard specifically to the ability to provide social rent, I think that the Government have made it clear that they do not consider social rent to be their top priority. It remains the top priority for housing associations. The spending review will obviously be an important component, depending on what money, if any, is available to support that. Right to buy, certainly in some markets, has the potential to liberate assets that would then be turned to cash and could be used to build social rented homes. That will vary according to the different markets in different parts of the country. There is a range of factors that will influence this, but I am anxious about starter homes appearing in the section 106 space and crowding everything else out.