Affordable Housing

Debate between Hugh Bayley and Julian Huppert

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Sir Hugh Bayley]

My hon. Friend is right, although it is not only public sector workers who are on zero-hours contracts; such contracts affect a lot of people who provide essential services. Every time we go into a shop, we are buying something we need from a private sector worker.

During my time, York has never built enough affordable housing, and that is my biggest regret—I might say my biggest failure—during 23 years in this House. I say to my friend, the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), who is here, that unless he and my successor, the new Member for York Central, increase the amount of housing we build in York, we will snuff out the economic growth that has been so important to the city in recent decades.

The number of affordable housing completions in York is falling. In 2010-11 we had 282, but in the following year we had 151, then 127 and, in 2013-14, just 50. Why are those numbers falling? The Government have introduced five measures that have reduced the amount of affordable housing built. First, they raised the affordable housing threshold for rural developments, so that affordable housing is not provided on developments of 10 homes or fewer. Since that change, only one rural housing scheme of more than 10 homes has been proposed in York. In the previous 18 months, 11 such schemes were proposed, all of which made contributions towards affordable housing, but that has stopped.

Secondly, the vacant building credit will mean that there is not an affordable housing component when vacant buildings are converted, or razed to the ground and rebuilt, to provide housing. A large part of the Nestlé factory site is available for redevelopment. The plan was to provide a couple of hundred homes, of which a substantial proportion would have been affordable. Now, because of the Minister’s change of policy—will he look up from his phone for a minute?—those affordable homes may no longer be provided.

Thirdly, there is the exemption from the right to convert offices to residential use. That also used to generate a proportion of affordable housing but no longer has to. The council in York estimates that since that change 77 affordable homes in York have been lost. Fourthly, York has a healthy housing revenue account, but the cap on the council’s ability to convert the resources it has into further building is reducing the amount of affordable housing that is made available. Fifthly, of course, the Government have also cut their grant for affordable housing to £23,000 on average per property, which is roughly half of what it was. All these five policies need to change. Of course, the lack of affordable housing is pushing people into the private rented sector, so what the Government are doing is reducing their capital contribution to building housing and instead spending the same amount of money, or more, on subsidising private landlords, which cannot be a good use of public money.

There is a very special problem in York with the broad rental market area, which is used to set the local housing allowance. It is a problem because rents in York are much higher than in areas some 20 miles away that are deemed to be part of the same local market for determining the BRMA rate. For example, the average private rent in York for a one-bedroom property is £564 a month. The BRMA local housing allowance is £430 a month, leaving families to find £134 a month from their own resources. However, in Selby, which is just 12 miles away, the average rent is £391, nearly £40 lower than the local housing allowance. People on the periphery are getting what they need—their full rent is covered—whereas people in York are getting substantially less. There are similar figures for two and three-bedroom properties, but I will not give them now. However, there is a gap of £220 between the local housing allowance and the average rent for a three-bedroom property.

This problem of a single BRMA covering a high-cost city and a much lower-cost rural periphery affects just four places in Britain. One is Cambridge, and I have written to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) about this; some months later, I am waiting for his reply, to find out whether we can do joint work on this issue. The other three are Oxford, York and, in Scotland, Edinburgh. If the Government do nothing else in those four cities, they should split those BRMAs, because then the BRMA would provide something closer to the real cost for people in the centre, and it would stop wasting public money by overpaying, if I might say so, on the periphery.

[Dr Huppert]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not received my response. I definitely sent one; in fact, I was surprised that he had not replied to me. Nevertheless, he is absolutely right: the BRMA, as introduced by the last Government, has been a calamity for places such as Cambridge, and I hope that that issue can be resolved.

[Sir Hugh Bayley]

Right: I will work with the hon. Gentleman in the few weeks that I have left as an MP, and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith).

One thing that the Government and local authorities must deliver is more land for housing. Critically, York needs to agree a local plan to designate where development will be permitted. That has not happened for decades under successive Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat-led councils in York. The current Labour council has submitted a plan; it was rejected by the Government and the council was told to redraft it. Now, there is an argument between the parties. Labour and the Green party argue that the council should plan to build 850 homes a year; the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives are proposing something like 730 homes a year.

In York, 4,200 homes have been built in the last 10 years, which is 420 a year. That is 300 homes a year less than the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are asking for, and 425 homes a year less than Labour and the Green party are asking for. I ask all those parties locally to stop shilly-shallying, to cut a deal and to get the plan approved, so that developers know where they can provide housing and where they cannot. If we do not do that, the housing that is so desperately needed simply will not be provided.

National Health Service

Debate between Hugh Bayley and Julian Huppert

Wednesday 21st January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman ought to get his facts right. The Cambridge university trust put in a bid—it was the sixth last to do so—but then withdrew because the cost of the tendering process under the right hon. Member for Leigh was far too high. It did not have a partnership with Serco. The hon. Gentleman should check the facts and check the record. The trust was driven out by the tendering. The hon. Gentleman should also know that the bid to which I suspect he was referring was led by Serco. What he is saying, in essence, is that the current shadow Secretary of State had to undo the damage that had been done by previous Secretaries of State. That is a bit of Labour misery that I imagine Labour Members can sort out between them.

We know the history, and we know the problems that led to it: the Government had to decide between three private sector-led bids for Hinchingbrooke. What we must do now is work out what to do next, and I think we need to ensure that Hinchingbrooke stays in the public sector. Trying to remove it from the public sector in order to deal with the PFI problems, which was the original idea, simply has not worked. It must stay fully within the NHS.

Last year, before any of this happened, I led a debate about health in Cambridgeshire. I dealt with a number of issues, and I will not go into all the details now, but I spoke about health funding and, in particular, about mental health. I gave a number of detailed examples of some of the many challenges that we have faced and still face. For instance, huge cuts were made five or six years ago. During that debate, I called for a substantial amount of extra money, not just for Cambridgeshire—although I shall say something about that shortly—but for mental health throughout the country. Members in all parts of the House have made some excellent speeches about mental health, but it is not talked about enough. I find it regrettable that the motion does not mention it, and I suspect that a number of Members on both sides of the House do as well. Let us hope that we receive that extra money for mental health.

Cambridgeshire, however, suffers from a number of specific problems. We have been a test bed for experimentation for many years. We had the Hinchingbrooke experiment— the largest tender that the NHS has ever seen. We saw huge numbers of PFI projects not just at Hinchingbrooke, but at Peterborough. Paying off the NHS costs is still taking 18% of Peterborough hospital’s budget. That is only a small proportion of the 138 PFI projects that we saw under the last Government, the costs of which will amount to £11.7 billion over the next Parliament. That money could be used far more productively.

We have been hit hard by that, but we also receive very low funding. We inherited a formula from the last Government, and the process of changing it has been too slow under the present Government.

[Sir Hugh Bayley]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman can intervene if he wants to talk about why PFI is a great thing, but otherwise I will move on.

The Government have been too slow to move to the new formula, which properly takes account of ageing populations. We know that the elderly cost more in terms of health care. Cambridgeshire receives £961 per head, whereas West Norfolk, for example, receives £1,255. That is a huge difference. I asked for extra money during the debate that I mentioned, and I am delighted that we have managed to secure an extra £20 million as a result of the recent allocation. That will provide much more funding for mental health, on top of the extra £1.5 million that has been provided this year and the extra £2.2 million that will be provided for IAPT—improving access to psychological therapies—next year. That will make a big difference, and will reverse some of the challenges that we face.

We need that extra cash, but we still need more in Cambridgeshire and throughout the country. Simon Stevens called for an extra £8 billion by 2020, after savings and efficiencies had been taken into account. He said that an extra £8 billion, in real terms, was needed if the NHS was to keep going. I think that that is important, and we as a party think that it is the right thing to do. One of the problems with the motion is that it does not deliver what Simon Stevens has said is needed for the NHS. I am not all that keen to support the provision of less than a third of what is needed to keep the NHS going, especially after hearing from the shadow Secretary of State that, despite what the motion says, the money is not all for the NHS but constitutes the entire offer for the NHS and social care, which also needs its own funding. We need that £8 billion.

I voted against the Health and Social Care Act 2012 as I did not agree with much of it. There are some issues, such as parity of esteem, that are very good and that I hope will never be repealed. I also disagree, however, with many of the things that the Labour party did to bring in the private sector in some damaging ways, with people being paid for things that never happened.

The fact is, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), under the previous Government medical spending on private provision went from £1.1 billion a year in 1997 to £7.5 billion in 2009-10. That is a vast increase. I have no problem with people who say that they support that and that it was the right thing to do, but to suggest that that large increase was excellent for the NHS while the fact that it has continued at essentially the same rate under this Government is a disaster for the NHS strikes me as a rather bizarre claim.

I have criticisms of this Government, the previous Government and the one before that. I want the NHS to spend more of its time focusing on patients or, even better, avoiding the need for people to be patients in the first place. That needs a trained, motivated and well-paid staff—I think they should get the money from the independent review. It needs a focus on prevention and public health and proper funding—that is, the £8 billion by 2020.